Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COUNTY OF AVON BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Domestic Energy Supplies

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply of 8 February, Official Report, c. 731, to what extent the standing charges of the electricity and gas supply industries take account of the length of time the supply has been installed.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Mellor): Domestic standing charges do not reflect the length of time that a supply has been connected. They are set by the supply industries and reflect their fixed costs such as meter reading, billing, maintaining the connection and, in the case of gas, provision to deal with emergencies.

Mr. Neubert: Would it not ease the financial burden on pensioners, who, in general terms, will have contributed more than their fair share of overhead costs over the years, and at the same time create equity between the long-established user and users with a new connection if the standing charge were to take some account of the length of time the supply had been installed?

Mr. Mellor: As my hon. Friend will know, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and I are currently reviewing standing charges. We shall bear in mind the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Eadie: Does the Minister agree that the matter is urgent? Pensioners' tears have not yet dried and the bills are still racing in. Pensioners still face financial difficulties. I hope that the Government will approach the matter with urgency, as it would help to alleviate pensioners' problems.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that pensions have been fully indexed during the lifetime of the Government. He will also know that 1½2million pensioners are receiving the additional sums paid by the Department of Health and Social Security. In case the hon. Gentleman suggests that this is an easy matter, he will recall that when he was at the Department of Energy a document called "Energy Tariffs and the Poor" was published. It recognised the difficulty of changing existing tariff structures and that there was no easy route to assist poor consumers through changes in tariff structures.

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the standing charges paid by retirement pensioners for their gas and electricity supplies.

Mr. Mellor: Together with my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, I am reviewing the problems faced by the elderly and other low-income consumers in paying standing charges. We hope to reach a conclusion fairly soon.

Mr. Durant: Is my hon. Friend aware that pensioners feel deeply that their standing charges are often much larger than their consumption costs? They do not resent having to pay for what they use, but they resent the standing charges. Will my hon. Friend therefore have a meeting with the heads of the nationalised industries to discuss the matter?

Mr. Mellor: I have already asked the deputy chairmen of the Electricity Council and the British Gas Corporation to meet me to discuss the issue.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that standing charges often represent a substantial proportion of bills and that there is great anger and concern among pensioners that standing charges have been constantly increasing? Does he accept that that is felt in Scotland particularly because of the severe climatic conditions?

Mr. Mellor: The standing charges reflect the cost to the industry of maintaining the supply. If the standing charges were abolished the gas and electricity industries would lose about £500 million in revenue each. That would mean a material increase in tariffs. While we are looking carefully at ways of assisting consumers, it is questionable whether that route would be the best.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware of the tremendous difficulties that fuel costs have presented to retired people and those on limited incomes? Is he aware that the removal of standing charges would at least relieve some of the agony that so many of our fellow elderly citizens have to face every winter?

Mr. Mellor: That matter was considered when the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was Secretary of State. He said in his foreword to the energy document:
After considering the group's report, the Government have concluded that none of these possibilities offers a satisfactory way of helping poor consumers with their fuel bills.
The hon. Gentleman is touching on a difficult subject that we are considering again. I urge him not to apply the double standards that are all too common in the House and not to expect that the Government will find it easier to answer these intractable questions than did his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Eggar: Will my hon. Friend consider whether consumers could be given a choice between a standing charge and a low unit cost, as at present, or no standing charge and a higher unit cost?

Mr. Mellor: That was the position with gas prices under the previous Government. There was a higher unit charge for the first 52 therms. The arrangement did not meet with the approval of the Price Commission, and it has been changed under this Government.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Minister confirm that gas prices have increased by 100 per cent. because of the


Government's actions and that the standing charge has increased by 300 per cent.? As there has been a decision to increase the charge, why can there not be a decision to change it in other ways?

Mr. Mellor: Removing the differential charge for the first 52 therms of gas meant that when the Labour Government left office the standing charge was £6·37 a quarter, so the effect is not markedly different.

Oil Sales

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on 8 February, Official Report, c. 250, how much oil was exported to Israel in the most recent period for which figures are available.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Hamish Gray): None, Sir.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister reconsider the unhappy policy of discrimination that has led to that sad answer? In the interests of free trade, should we not now sell our oil to a democratic customer anxious to buy it?

Mr. Gray: The policy is not aimed against any country but is in favour of European Community and International Energy Agency countries, with whom we have a special energy relationship. We should ask licencees to recognise those relationships. There are many other friendly countries to whom we do not export oil because they are not members of those alliances.

Mr. Marlow: As the Israeli war machine is the greatest threat to Middle East stability, would it not be a little absurd for Her Majesty's Government to provide it with fuel with which it could threaten world peace?

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend's point hardly relates directly to the question.

British National Oil Corporation

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many barrels of oil produced daily from the oilfields in the United Kingdom sector of the continental shelf the British National Oil Corporation handles as a trader.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Nigel Lawson): In 1981 it was 1,037,000 barrels per day.

Dr. Mabon: As that is such a profoundly overwhelming proportion of the total, does it not suggest that BNOC should remain an integrated trading, exploration and production company?

Mr. Lawson: I fail to see the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's question. The figure points to the strength that BNOC, after the flotation of Britoil, will have in the world's oil markets.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that the drop in world oil prices will affect the trading arm of BNOC, as it will the Government directly? Is it not time for the Government to act in concert with OPEC to cut production to maintain the price level and to save in Scotland jobs that will be lost if North Sea development does not take place?

Mr. Lawson: The fall in oil prices will have a much more positive effect on jobs in the Western world, including the United Kingdom and Scotland, than the policy that the hon. Gentleman would like us to pursue.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Does the question asked by the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) not demonstrate the fact that the SDP has great difficulty in making up its mind whether it is for or against nationalisation?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The SDP has great difficulty in deciding where it stands on everything and anything.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware that BNOC is facing its greatest crisis since it was created and that the fall in oil prices has created a major problem for the trading arm, which could lose large sums of money? Does he agree that now is not the time to smash up the corporation, as it would destroy the morale of the State trading arm personnel? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least consider postponing that part of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill for at least 12 months to give the corporation a chance to weather the storm?

Mr. Lawson: No, Sir. I am confident that BNOC will remain fully capable of dealing with world economic developments and developments in the oil market as they occur.

Space Policy

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Energy with what aspects of Her Majesty's Government's space policy his Department is currently concerned.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): Clearly, I am concerned to ensure that my Department is aware of developments in space technology that are of interest to energy related issues.

Mr. Marshall: With the growing increase of loading for commercial satellite projects in this country and the scientific satellite development through the European Space Agency, in which Britain plays a leading part, does my hon. Friend agree that the time is now overdue for us to take a wider look at those issues? Will he carefully consider the opportunities in the remote sensing programme and for solar energy through space developments.

Mr. Moore: Knowing my hon. Friend's extensive knowledge and experience, I shall maintain my Department's watching brief.

Diesel Fuel

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much diesel fuel was produced in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available.

Mr. Gray: My Department's estimate is 5·5 million tonnes in 1981.

Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the diesel engine industry is a strategic industry and that firms like Perkins in my constituency should not be exposed to unfair competition, from whatever source?

Mr. Gray: I noted a recent article that suggested that Perkins, along with British Leyland, was carrying out research on a motor car diesel engine. We wish such a venture every success.

Energy Prices

Mr. John H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what will now be the estimated level of energy prices, whether electricity, gas, oil or coal, for industry and the domestic consumer in the United Kingdom over the next 12 months; and if he will indicate from information available to him how these are expected to compare with those in other EEC countries.

Mr. Lawson: Market prices for oil products depend on the balance of supply and demand in a highly competitive market. The price of gas to the home will remain much cheaper than both oil and electricity and among the cheapest in Europe. For most other energy consumers, the prospect is that prices will rise broadly in line with other costs in the economy. I would expect that prices to the vast majority of consumers will remain generally in line with those on the Continent.

Mr. Osborn: First, will my right hon. Friend tell industry how gas and electricity prices in Britain will compare with those on the Continent over the next 12 months? Secondly, will he assure domestic consumers that they will have a price advantage, at least for gas, especially over France and Germany, for the next two or three years, as they do not appear to be aware of the fact?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right that British consumers are generally unaware of the fact that, despite the considerable increase in the price of domestic gas, it is still a great deal cheaper here than in France or Germany. It is perhaps understandable that they are not fully aware of that fact, but they are more keenly aware of the fact that gas is still a far cheaper fuel for them than is electricity or oil.
I expect that the price of gas and electricity to industry will remain broadly in line with prices on the Continent. As my hon. Friend is aware, there is a problem with heavy users of electricity, but I hope that before long we shall have a little alleviation on that front.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Are the Government looking ahead to the time when North Sea oil will be dear oil and considering how best to protect ourselves against the danger of having to buy our own dear oil?

Mr. Lawson: If I may say so to the right hon. Gentleman, these matters are probably best left to the market.

Mr. Palmer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as the Select Committee on Energy did a great deal of work on the question, it is a pity that it had such a disappointing and unhelpful reply from his Department?

Mr. Lawson: I do not agree that the reply was unhelpful. I applaud the Select Committee for its work on that and other energy matters. I do not believe that the last word has yet been said by my Department.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the market has done a splendid job in destroying the cohesion of OPEC? As the cohesion of OPEC was a virtual disaster for the Western world for the best part of the last decade, will he now formally encourage that process?

Mr. Lawson: I hope that my hon. Friend is not trying to lure or seduce me into saying something that might be considered undiplomatic, but I fully take the force of what he has said. I hope that he will therefore approve the positive way in which BNOC recently responded to market forces in reducing the price of North Sea oil by $4 per barrel.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I understand it, the Minister has just confirmed the NEDC report's finding that comparative prices for heavy users of electricity work to the disadvantage of this country. Does his reply mean that he intends to do nothing about the NEDC report's recommendation?

Mr. Lawson: First, it was not the NEDC report recommendation. The task force investigated all kinds of comparative industrial energy prices—oil, gas, electricity, and so on—both for small and large consumers. Although it found that in general there was no longer any disadvantage to speak of between industrial energy consumers in this country and on the Continent, it identified an area, particularly among electricity users, where there was a considerable disparity. I suggested that we hope very shortly indeed to be able to do something significant—I do not say that it will be all that the industry would wish—in that area.

British Gas Corporation (Domestic Supplies)

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will seek to extend the requirement that the British Gas Corporation should supply gas to residential properties, which at present it is not obliged to supply.

Mr. John Moore: No, Sir, but there is no statutory bar on the British Gas Corporation supplying premises outside the 25-yard limit. Moreover, the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill will allow consumers outside that limit to seek, where available, alternative supplies.

Dr. Marshall: Will the Minister encourage British Gas to go over the albeit non-statutory bar to which he referred? Is he aware that the present arrangements discriminate unjustly by creating two groups within our nation—those who receive gas and those who are most unlikely ever to receive gas from the British Gas Corporation? Is he aware that those arrangments operate unfairly against many of my constituents and also against those of the Secretary of State?

Mr. Moore: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has reminded those who did know about it of the attraction of gas to so many people who cannot obtain it. I must remind him, however, that the British Gas Corporation has an obligation to seek economically to satisfy gas demand, as opposed to the specific duty to which I referred. Extension within that economic availability must be left to British Gas.

Mr. Rost: Is my hon. Friend aware that British Gas has abused its monopoly powers by refusing supplies to district heating and combined heat and power schemes, or by agreeing to supply them only at the industrial rather than the domestic tariff? Is he aware that that has worked greatly against consumer interests, as cheaper heat could have been provided through many schemes which as a result of British Gas policy have not gone ahead?

Mr. Moore: I am conscious of my hon. Friend's extensive knowledge of the subject of combined heat and power, and I am aware of the comments that have been made about past pricing policy in this regard. I am sure that all my hon. Friends will recognise the ways in which competition as a result of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill will enhance supply opportunities.

Mr. Douglas: How can the Minister justify certain tentative proposals to export gas when some consumers in the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland, cannot be supplied?

Mr. Moore: Questions relating to Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I am aware of the point and shall bring it to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Dover: Is my hon. Friend aware that constituents in Chorley and in North-West England generally will find his answer most unsatisfactory? On the other point, will he confirm that potential consumers can now look to subcontractors to make a link with existing gas mains?

Mr. Moore: I am aware of my hon. Friend's persistent activities on behalf of his constituents in this respect. I suggest that it might be proper to await the completion of proceedings on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, but certainly that Bill seeks to offer competitive alternative supply choices to consumers in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Rowlands: Does the Minister agree that as the buying rights of British Gas are an important part of conservation and depletion policy for North Sea gas, if those rights are destroyed depletion policy will also be destroyed? Does he agree that if the Bill is passed without safeguards British Gas may find itself with insufficient supplies of gas even to supply its own 15 million customers?

Mr. Moore: The Government are responsible for depletion policies for oil and gas, and our powers in that area are unchanged. It is hard to conceive that competition, as in all other area, will not increase rather than diminish opportunities for supply.

Domestic Heating (Rebate Scheme)

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will initiate a feasibility study for the purpose of introducing an income-related rebate scheme for domestic heating.

Mr. Mellor: The Government are already spending some £250 million this year in assisting those in most need.

Mr. Atkinson: I acknowledge that the Government are spending that amount this year, but does the Minister agree that that excludes many low-income families who receive rebates because they cannot afford to pay economic rents or rates for the houses in which they live? Is it not logical for the Government now to consider extending those rebate schemes to include energy, which is quite as important as rents or rates in terms of essential payments?

Mr. Mellor: That is essentially a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Nevertheless, the Government are currently helping 2·25 million people who are in receipt of supplementary

benefit. Of course, there may be others who consider themselves to be in need, but it has proved remarkably difficult to find ways in which to assist them and the funds with which to do so. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Labour Government's scheme gave people in receipt of rebates only a one-off payment averaging £7·50, which was scarcely more than a sop and illustrates the difficulties experienced by successive Governments in widening the assistance available.

Mr. John H. Osborn: In his talks with the Secretary of State for Social Services will my hon. Friend bear in mind that people who in their working days used to obtain their wages on Friday and be spent up by Monday are now finding it very difficult to pay their fuel bills? Could some form of assistance be given to provide meters for both electricity and gas in such cases?

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend touches on an important point. The Policy Studies Institute review currently being considered by the industries advocated an extension in the use of prepayment meters. I am happy to say that the number of such meters installed by both supply industries has materially increased in the past 12 months.

Alternative Energy Sources

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Tony Speller.

Mr. Speller: Question No. 11, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is question No. 10.

Mr. Speller: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress he expects to make on research into and development of alternative energy sources.

Mr. Mellor: The answer is the same, Mr. Speaker, whatever the number. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Perhaps I have said more than I intended. I shall stick to my brief in future.
The purpose of the Government's renewable energy source research and development programme is to establish the scale of each source and to develop the various technologies sufficiently to establish to what extent they could be exploited economically under United Kingdom conditions.
Progress has been good and I expect this to continue.

Mr. Speller: I apologise for my lack of numeracy and my misreading, Mr. Speaker. Will my hon. Friend assure us that the Government genuinely believe in and support alternative forms of energy such as wind, wave and geothermal heat, which I believe can be advanced for the benefit of our community. Has he any information about progress in that direction?

Mr. Mellor: The Government have a wide-ranging programme of research and development into a number of renewable sources—solar, wind, biomass, small scale hydro, tidal wave and geothermal projects. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the amount of money being spent this year—more than £13 million—is materially greater than in previous years.

Mr. Eadie: Will the Minister be a little more specific in order to help his hon. Friend and the House? What specific requests has he received for more funding of alternative energy sources?

Mr. Mellor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a number of requests are received and evaluated by the Department,


with assistance from our energy technology support unit at Harwell, and with advice from our advisory committee on research and development, which will report next month on the present state of the "renewables" programme. I should tell him, however, that the Government are able to meet more of the demands placed on the renewables programme because, compared with the £2·8 million spent on research and development in the hon. Gentleman's last year at the Department, we are spending some £13·1 million this year, which is an increase materially greater than the rate of inflation.

Mr. Forman: May I urge my hon. Friend not to overlook the fact that the cheapest, safest and most readily available alternative energy source is energy conservation? What response does his Department propose to make to the recent good report of the advisory council on energy conservation, which said that with a few more incentives much more could be achieved on that front?

Mr. Mellor: We take seriously the advisory council's views. The House knows that the council is being reconstituted to bring in some new blood to continue its good work. We are studying the report, which made some useful suggestions as well as a number of supportive observations about the Government's policies, particularly on the importance of economic pricing in relation to energy conservation.

Mr. Park: Having examined the wave energy project at the Lanchester polytechnic in Coventry, can the Minister say whether his Department is prepared to support a larger project to take the scheme a step forward?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to Lanchester and was much impressed by what I was shown and by the obvious signs of a highly effective partnership between the polytechnic and private industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I told those at Lanchester, the whole wave programme, which has been going on for six years and has cost about £12 million in public money, is being looked at by the advisory council on research and development. It would be premature for me to say more until I receive its report. However, I was impressed by what I saw and I shall consider the ACORD report with considerable sympathy towards what is being done on wave energy.

Energy Prices

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current price per therm to industrial users of oil, gas, electricity and coal; and how these will be affected by increases already announced.

Mr. Lawson: Prices based on my Department's survey of 900 large industrial consumers are published quarterly in "Energy Trends". I have asked for the latest available figures to be published in the Official Report.
Looking ahead, current coal prices will run until November. I hope that we can look forward to some stability in gas prices and I would expect electricity prices to rise broadly in line with inflation. Falling crude oil prices and weak demand mean that there is scope for buyers to seek lower oil product prices through aggressive purchasing.

Mr. Miller: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, which I note was different from the answer to question No. 10, may I ask him to tell the House—as he referred in an earlier reply to market prices—what part of the elements that make up the price is represented by the external financing limit set by the Government, including the contributions required of electricity and gas, and what part is represented by the management and cost structure, and how those are being looked at with a view to reduction?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend knows that gas is, if anything, below what would be the free market price. That is clearly the case, because the demand for gas for industry exceeds the available supply. The electricity industry follows a policy of long-run, marginal-cost pricing. That brings us to the important question that my hon. Friend rightly raised concerning the structure of the industries' costs. It is a major objective of the Government to do everything that they can to bear down on the costs of nationalised industries in general and the monopoly industries in particular. My hon. Friend knows of the recently announced list of Monopolies and Mergers Commission references, which is addressed to precisely that objective.

Mr. Hardy: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in relation to electricity the position is extremely serious in certain industries? Will he reflect on the fact that at previous Question Times he has compared our position with that of France and has suggested that the French gain enormous benefit from cheaper nuclear electricity? Will he accept that those previous answers have igored the fact that the £1·4 billion write-off of capital expenditure to assist French nuclear generation is yet another example of how other Governments do not leave their industries with one hand tied behind their backs?

Mr. Lawson: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman trying to bury his head in the sand. The French industry has a substantial advantage as a result of the large proportion of relatively cheap nuclear power that is available in France. Had we made the same sort of progress under the Labour Government we would have a different structure of electricity prices today.

Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend tell me, with his usual candour, whether domestic consumers of oil will share the benefits that industry will gain from lower oil prices?

Mr. Lawson: This is a free market, but my hon. Friend knows that there are already considerable signs at the petrol pumps of falling prices, from which the domestic consumer is able to draw full benefit.

Mr. Eadie: When the right hon. Gentleman replies to letters and communications does he, as I hope, make it clear that Government policy is responsible for the substantial increase in energy and gas prices?

Mr. Lawson: The Government have had the courage to stop the policy of the previous Government of holding gas prices to the domestic consumer artificially low, as a result of which industry had to pay substantially more. By getting a better balance between the price of gas to the home and the price to industry we have addressed ourselves to what is undoubtedly the major problem in energy pricing.

Following are the figures:

Prices Based on Survey of 900 Large Industrial Consumers Provisional fourth quarter, 1981



£—tonne
p/kwh
p/therm*


Heavy Fuel Oil
115·51
—
28·5


Gas Oil
189·51
—
44·0


Gas
—
—
22·57


Electricity
—
2·889
84·7


Coal
41·93
—
16·3


Source: Department of Energy.


* Prices are not directly comparable as the costs to the consumer depend on the efficiency with which the fuel is used.

Amersham International Ltd.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the advice of Messrs Rothschild's, merchant bankers, in relation to the fixing of share prices in relation to the privatisation of Amersham International.

Mr. Lawson: I am satisfied that Rothschild's gave the Government their best advice.

Mr. Dalyell: Since, before the event, the Investors Chronicle solemnly told its readers to expect a premium of 30p over the existing share price of 142p, why was neither the Secretary of State nor Rothschild's as wise?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is characteristically wrong. The Investors Chronicle said at the time the issue was announced, the price was announced and the prospectus came out—

Mr. Dalyell: 26 February.

Mr. Lawson: I am talking about the 14 or 15 February.

Mr. Dalyell: 26 February.

Mr. Lawson: That has nothing to do with it. The Investors Chronicle said that the issue was ambitiously priced.

Mr. Dalyell: 26 February.

Mr. Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend tell the commentators who, with the benefit of hindsight, have become instant experts, that if the issue had been carried out by way of tender or even at a higher price, bearing in mind the amount of interest that was retained in the issue, the net amount received by the Government may have been less and that the issue at least had the benefit of being spread very well among smaller investors?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was a highly successful act of denationalisation. The taxpayer got a very fair price—19 times prospective price earnings, compared with 10½ times price earnings for the average share in the FT index and considerably less than 19 even for companies such as GEC and Marks and Spencer. The reason why the Opposition do not like it is that it was a successful piece of denationalisation.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Secretary of State consider that his decision on the method of sale—and it was his decision—was the right one for the community?

Mr. Lawson: I accepted the advice given by my advisers and I take full responsibility for that. I am satisfied that there was a very successful result. I have never known so much nonsense written or spoken about anything as there has been about the flotation. The idea

that the price at which shares are being traded was the price that could have been secured for the offer as a whole at the first instance is a view shared by no one who knows anything about the stock market.

Gas Prices

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many letters or other communications have been received by his Department in regard to the incereases in gas prices that are to be made during 1982.

Mr. John Moore: In recent weeks my Department has received about 300 letters and other communications about the increases in domestic gas prices announced by BGC on 25 February.

Mr. Hardy: As Ministers seem unaware of the position, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the replies to those representations will make it clear that price increases result from Government decisions rather than any decisions of British Gas?

Mr. Moore: The replies sent by the Government will make it clear that the Government have had the courage to face the appalling mess that they inherited in the imbalance and lack of relationship to the real cost of supply that still gives rise—as the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) has noted—to a tremendous and potentially more useful relatively cheap source of supply to many people.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will my hon. Friend also make it clear in his replies that the price has been kept so artificially low that demand had outstripped supplies of gas and that many industries have been unable to obtain supplies? Is he aware that the balance had for too long been tipped against industry and in favour of the domestic consumer?

Mr. Moore: I could not agree more with what my hon. Friend says. The 15-month effective industrial gas price freeze to 1 March was the beginning of an attempt to ensure long-term job opportunities through recognising the needs of industry as well as the price of domestic gas.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: If the policy is so self-evident, why was the first action of the Government to freeze gas prices?

Mr. Moore: It is increasingly extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman's only argument seems to be that previous policies of the Government were so wrong that we should have acted even more quickly to correct them.

Gas Tanker (Solent)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will decline to deal with the Mobil Oil Company, pending the outcome of its negotiations to locate a liquid petroleum gas tanker in the Solent.

Mr. Gray: No. In any case, Mobil is not negotiating to locate a tanker in the Solent.

Mr. Adley: Now that Mobil has backed off in the face of unanimous hostile opposition to this proposal, will my hon. Friend give the assurance that his Department, in its dealings with oil companies, takes note of their social activities? Will he say that he considers this proposal thoroughly anti-social?
Will my hon. Friend give a personal assurance that he will have talks with the Secretary of State for Transport,


who has been given responsibility for co-ordinating Government activity, to make sure that environmentally monstrous proposals such as this cannot proceed? Will he agree that the only course is to legislate quickly to enable authorities and others to have powers to deal with the situation?

Mr. Gray: I can give my hon. Friend both assurances. It is the policy of the Department of Energy to scrutinise carefully any proposals put to it by oil companies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has already set up a working party of officials to review urgently the existing arrangements and to recommend any changes that are felt necessary. Possible controls exist in legislation falling to the Health and Safety Executive and the Departments of Trade and Transport. I shall ensure that the views of the Department of Energy are always made available to my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Viggers: Will my hon. Friend agree that while there may be powers to cover proposals such as the gas tanker, there is a need for legislation to ensure that the broader environmental input is considered?

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend will, I think, agree that we would be wise to await the findings of the group set up by the Secretary of State for Transport.

North Sea and English Channel (Oil Exploration)

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the date of the eighth round of licensing blocks for exploration in the North Sea and English Channel.

Mr. Gray: No decisions have yet been taken on the timing for an eighth round of offshore licensing.

Mr. Eggar: When my hon. Friend is making his decision, will he consider whether it would be appropriate for at least some of the blocks to be allocated by auction to the highest bidding group?

Mr. Gray: As is normally the case, before each round of licensing all possibilities will be examined. I assure my hon. Friend that this will continue to be the case.

Mr. Rowlands: When the hon. Gentleman makes his allocations for the eighth round, will he give an assurance that they will not be used as a large handout to the new creation, Britoil, and thereby enhance the price and value of this new company? Does he agree that this would be an abuse of the licensing powers of the Secretary of State?

Mr. Gray: Britoil will be in exactly the same position as any other oil company. It will have the same opportunities to apply.

Mr. Adley: Aligning this matter to the previous question, will my hon. Friend ensure that the oil companies are made aware of their obligations to the fishing community before starting any exploration in the English Channel?

Mr. Gray: Yes. I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, in successive rounds of licences, progress has been made with the fishing industry. There has been considerable discussion at every level.

British Gas Corporation (Monopoly Powers)

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the British Gas Corporation to discuss the abolition of the corporation's monopoly buying powers.

Mr. Lawson: I am in constant discussion with the chairman on this matter.

Mr. Rost: Will my right hon. Friend explain the justification of the British Gas argument against Government legislation that the breaking of the monopoly on the purchasing of gas, thus providing more competition, will increase prices? Does not the logic of this argument cast doubts on the whole credibility of British Gas?

Mr. Lawson: I must confess that I have never been able to understand the logic of the British Gas Corporation's position on this matter. It seems clear that the introduction of competition will mean greater choke for industry and, in fact, choice where none exists at present, and that prices will tend to be lower rather than higher, as would have been the case.

Energy Reserves

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest estimated reserves of coal, natural gas and oil in the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Moore: The NCB estimates that 45 billion tonnes will be ultimately recoverable. The latest estimates published in the 1981 Brown Book, less production to 31 December 1981 for remaining gas and oil reserves, are 1·8 billion to 4·0 billion tonnes for oil and 700 billion to 2,100 billion cubic metres for gas.

Mr. Evans: As our energy reserves are one of our greatest assets that give us advantages over our Western industrial competitors will the Government think c f withdrawing the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, which will be guillotined later today, and which seeks to dispose of our national assets in the oil and gas industries? Is it not better that we should husband these resources for the advantage of the people rather than for private speculation?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman has it wrong. It is not the assets themselves, but the wise, efficient and competitive use of the assets that produces wealth for the nation. That is what the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill will do, by ensuring more competitive use of those rare assets.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware that much of our great reserves of coal should be used as soon as possible to the benefit of the country? Does he agree that he should get in touch with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see that no further local authority houses are built without chimneys to burn coal? Could he also ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to form his opinion more quickly arid to advertise his allowances and loans to industry to change over to solid fuel?

Mr. Moore: I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman in forwarding his legitimate coal interest. However, coal can best serve the domestic and the industrial user if it can be supplied at competitive prices with security of supply. These are the two key things that coal needs to get itself back into these markets.

Boiler Conversion Scheme

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the operation of the boiler conversion scheme.

Mr. John Moore: The scheme has resulted in a great deal of interest in coal conversion, although the rate of take-up of grants has been slower than expected. The scheme is currently under review and an announcement will be made shortly.

Mr. Hannam: Does the Minister accept that most people consider this an extremely worthwhile scheme and are rather disappointed that it has not gone as well as was hoped? Will the Minister consider extending the scheme to include boilers using fuels other than oil?

Mr. Moore: I drew my hon. Friend's attention to the announcement that will be made shortly, but I am sure that he and other hon. Members interested in the scheme will remember what has already been reported in today's Financial Times about the massive and welcome increase of coal boilers planned by ICI.

Mr. Rowlands: It is regrettable that this scheme has been a gigantic flop in the past 12 months. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, out of the recommendations or changes that will be proposed, will be able to help it along. Will the scheme be further hindered by the possible use of natural gas for steam raising, as could well happen under the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, since this could affect the conversion to coal by many industrialists?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman spends so much time revelling in misery that he ignores the realities around him and the welcome news by ICI today for all interested in coal, as opposed to the politics of trying to make coal look unsuccessful.

Mr. Watson: If the take-up of grant under the scheme has been lower than expected, can my hon. Friend tell the House exactly what he did expect and what the take-up has been?

Mr. Moore: I did not say lower. I think I suggested that the commencement of the scheme was slower than those of us seeking rapid conversion expected. I also said that a further announcement would be made in the near future. In a recent debate I said that the figure was £71 million and that the initial applications numbered 61.

Gas Prices

Mr. Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what disussions he has had with the chairman of British Gas concerning increases in the price of domestic gas in 1982.

Mr. Lawson: I have had no discussions with the chairman of the British Gas Corporation about the increases in the price of domestic gas announced by the corporation on 25 February. These increases are consistent with the three-year financial target agreed by my predecessor with British Gas in January 1980. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this matter was debated in the House last week and approved by a large majority.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is most regrettable that he did not have conversations with the chairman of British Gas about the 22 per cent.

increase that has been imposed on gas consumers this year? Had he done so he would have discovered that the chairman very much resents the fact that the Gas Corporation is being made a scapegoat for the Government's disgraceful policy of putting a 10 per cent. tax on gas.

Mr. Lawson: There is no question of a 10 per cent. tax. What is more, had it not been for Government policy on domestic gas prices—a policy with which the Gas Corporation was in a large measure of agreement—it would not have been possible to hold prices for industrial consumers of gas.

Mr. Waller: Will not the Government's policy ensure that gas is used more efficiently in the future and that we are less likely to see the British Gas Corporation obliged to supply gas to domestic consumers at a relatively low price when it is unable to provide gas, even at a higher price, to those industrial consumers who need it?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right, and that is the position that the Government inherited and the position that we have changed substantially by the measures we have taken—unpopular though they are. There are other measures that we are looking into now. We have, for example, asked the British Gas Corporation to review its policy on combined heat and power.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Low Cholesterol Meals

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for the Refreshment Sub-Committee of the Services Committee to consider the question of encouraging the provisions of low cholesterol meals in the House.

Mr. Joseph Dean: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Chairman.
I can give the hon. Lady an undertaking that we shall look into the question.

Mrs. Short: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful reply. Will he agree that while many people are aware of the dangers of the consumption of large quantities of butter, they are not so much aware of the problems associated with full fat milk? Will he suggest to the Refreshment Sub-Committee that it may care to invite the advice of the coronary unit at University College hospital, which has undertaken a good deal of work on the matter?

Mr. Dean: I can give an undertaking that we shall examine the widest aspects of the problem. I must, however, say that the outcome may have to be decided by the economics of the situation.

Mr. Alan Clark: Will the hon. Gentleman raise with the Refreshment Sub-Committee the subject of early-day motion 311, which, apart from serving the incontrovertible purpose of congratulating the Sub-Committee on the cold buffet in the Members' Dining Room, allies with this the somewhat revolutionary concept that hon. Members' spouses should be admitted to the Members' Dining Room for lunch? Should the Refreshment Sub-Committee consider so radical a change to our existing arrangements, does the hon. Gentleman think it proper that the persons so invited should simply help themselves at the buffet and


then proceed quietly and quickly into the corridor to consume their food rather than disturb our traditional and congenial arrangements?

Mr. Dean: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's question forms part of the original question. I would, however, view with disdain taking any action on the early-day motion. The next thing that would happen is that hon. Members' wives would wish to bring in children, and I can see no end of trouble arising.

Big Ben Clock Tower

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will raise in the Services Committee the matter of the cleaning of the clock tower that houses Big Ben.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): Work on the clock tower is part of the programme of restoration of the stonework of the Palace of Westminster, which is being funded by the Department of the Environment. It is not possible to say when that particular part of the programme will be undertaken.

Mr. Janner: What part of the programme will deal with that area of the Palace of Westminster that is most visible? Is it correct that work is now to move to an area that is almost invisible? When will this resounding symbol of democracy be encased in clean and safe surroundings?

Mr. Pym: It will obviously take some time to complete the whole work. I informed the House on 8 February that the next phase of the programme in 1982–83 will consist of work on the western elevation of the Palace. In due course, we shall come to the clock tower.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: When the great symbol of democracy comes up for cleaning, will my right hon. Friend remind his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that modern technology does not require the whole of Big Ben to be surrounded by scaffolding for that purpose?

Mr. Pym: We shall be glad to take technical advice from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that work on the symbol of democracy—the Big Ben tower—should be brought forward and that it should betackled next before anything else is done?

Mr. Pym: I thought that this Chamber rather than Big Ben was the symbol of democracy, but I shall convey those views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I know that he has considered the programme carefully and I doubt whether he will wish or think it appropriate to alter what he has decided after consideration.

Universal Suffrage (Statues)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will ask the Services Committee to consider the matter of placing within the precincts of the House statues commemorating champions of universal suffrage in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Pym: The erection of commemorative statues within the precincts of the House is not normally a matter for the Services Committee.

Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more appropriate than the question whether there should be a statue of Stanley Baldwin in the Member's Lobby 3 the question of honouring in this building those such as the Chartists and the suffragette leaders who fought to establish universal suffrage in Britain?

Mr. Pym: That is a matter of opinion and the hon. Gentleman must seek wider support in the House if he wishes ultimate success for that design.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Having regard to the Conservative Party resolution of 1887 on this matter, Mrs. Pankhurst's Tory connections and the work of the Conservative and Unionist Women's Franchise Association, should we not have bipartisan agreement on a suitable commemoration, although not necessarily this one?

Mr. Pym: That is a matter that could be pursued. It seems to me that there are many candidates but few pedestals.

Sir Anthony Meyer: As one of the consequences o universal suffrage, however regrettable, has been the appearance in strength of the Labour Party, would it not be appropriate to honour the two Prime Ministers who did most to enable the Labour Party to enter this Chamber, Stanley Baldwin and Ramsay MacDonald?

Mr. Pym: They, too, are candidates and there is a certain amount of support for a statue of one of those late Prime Ministers. We shall, in due course, have to see whether the House will, at some stage, wish to erect it statue of Baldwin and, conceivably, MacDonald, although I doubt whether it will be in the immediate future.

Television Crews (Access)

Mr. Crowther: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will ask the Services Committee to consider the matter of access to the precincts of the House of television crews wishing to conduct interviews with hon. Members, in view of the obstruction and security risks which the present arrangements may cause.

Mr. Pym: I shall ask the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee to look into the matter that the hon. Member has raised.

Mr. Crowther: Can the Lord President confirm the information that I was given by an inspector of the House of Commons police, following an incident in which the T3 Corridor had been completely blocked for a long time by a television crew and their equipment, that all they needed to get into the House was a letter signed by a Member? Is it not obvious that the ease with which a signature could be forged presents the risk of imposters coming in through the security check concealing something much more lethal than television equipment?

Mr. Pym: That aspect can also be examined by the authorities of the House concerned with security. I am sorry about the inconvenience to which the hon. Gentleman was put. There are rules about what it is possible to do in the House without further permission, and I shall have the matter investigated.

Research Assistants

Mr. Murphy: asked the Lord President of the Council if he is satisfied with the arrangements within the precincts of the House relating to research assistants.

Mr. Pym: As I explained to the House on Thursday, I have arranged for inquiries to be made into all aspects of the matter.

Mr. Murphy: Will my right hon. Friend consider in that inquiry examining the desirability of foreign students acting as research assistants to obtain credits in overseas degree courses, in effect at the taxpayers' expense?

Mr. Pym: Yes, I shall go into this matter carefully in the inquiry, which will take a few weeks. I do not have the facts and particulars at the moment but I shall consider them when I have all the information that I need.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is it not scandalous, with 3 million unemployed, that hon. Members should be using the free

services of foreign nationals as research assistants? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it rings a bit hollow for some hon. Members to criticise the Government's youth opportunities scheme—which at least pays those young people some money—while they are using the services of these foreign nationals free?

Mr. Pym: That is one opinion, and I have no doubt that there are many others, but I think that it would be better to establish the facts first.

Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever may be the value of these young people they should not be described as research assistants, as I am not aware that any of them make any contribution to known knowledge.

Mr. Pym: A number of allegations of that kind have been made and have led me to take an interest in this matter. As a result, inquiries will be made.

Poly-cholorinated Biphenyl

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the grave health threat posed to thousands of people in the country by poly-cholorinated biphenyl, a poisonous, cancer-causing chemical, the use of which is widespread throughout the country and which now, it seems, is leaking from several large installations around the countryside.
I am buttressed in my argument for this Adjournment debate by my reading of this morning's Yorkshire Post, whose environment correspondent, Mr. Robert Schofield, brings further fresh disturbing evidence of the dangers of this chemical and hazards that most British people are unaware of.
The chemical is known to cause cancer, in addition to a range of other detrimental health effects, including chronic bronchitis, liver and central nervous system disorders and the retardation of children's growth.
The manufacture of PCB ceased voluntarily in this country in 1977, but by that time thousands of tons had already been manufactured in the United Kingdom. The chemical can be destroyed only by burning at high temperatures—at 1,000°C—and all that has not been disposed of in this way remains a permanent health hazard. In an accident recently in Japan, 1,000 people suffered the severe health effects that I have described, and the average amount of PCB that they consumed was only 2 grams. PCB persists not only in the environment but in the human body. It cannot be excreted, and minute amounts build up until disastrous medical effects occur.
A debate is urgent, because evidence has now come to light that an estimated 20,000 electrical transformers filled with PCB are in service in the United Kingdom. Each contains up to 300 gallons of this noxious chemical. They have been placed in hospitals, colleges, schools, factories and offices, amongst other places. Evidence has now come to light that 90 per cent. of these transformers are leaking. The effects when leaks occur can be gauged by the fact that whole streets have to be torn up, because the sewerage system has to be renewed. All the earth and anything else that has come into contact 'with the chemical has to be burnt at the only place in Europe where it can be destroyed under certain conditions at very high temperatures. The evidence has only just come to light that 20,000 installations around the country are leaking.
I urge that we have the opportunity immediately to debate the matter so that we can bring to the attention of the public the dangers of this hazard. Apparently there is widespread ignorance about how to deal with this product. When the emergency services are called in, very often they sluice it down the nearest drain. In view of the threat to health and to the environment, it is vital that the House discusses this matter and the measures that are necessary to forestall an imminent disaster.
The matter is specific in that it relates to a particular chemical. It is important to the lives of perhaps thousands of Britons who are at risk. It is urgent in that PCB has already been discharged into the environment and is likely to threaten many thousands of lives.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely
the grave health threat posed to thousands of people in the country by poly-chlorinated biphenyl, a poisonous, cancer-causing chemical, the use of which is widespread throughout the country and which now, it seems, is leaking from several large installations around the countryside.
The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a very important matter, but he knows that my powers are limited when it comes to altering the business tonight or tomorrow if I were to grant such an emergency debate.
The House has also instructed me to give no reasons for my decision. I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I must rule that his submission doe s not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: In order to save the time of the House, I shall put one Question on all five motions.
Ordered,
That the Valuation (Scotland) Order 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Export Guarantees (Extension of Period) (No. 4) Order 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Gummer.]

President Reagan (Address to Parliament)

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise the matter with you in your role as protector of the reputation of the House. There are a considerable number of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who would like to know whether you were consulted about the suggestion, which has been given publicity in the United States of America, that the President of the United States of America has been invited to address a joint meeting of the Members of both Houses of Parliament.
There are a considerable number of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who feel that whereas there are a number of distinguished American past Presidents and existing Heads of other States who might reasonably receive such an invitation, they do not believe that there are a substantial number of the British people who would welcome such an invitation being extended to the present President of the United States of America—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can save the hon. Gentleman time, because I know that the Opposition are very anxious to have their full time for the debate that is to follow.
I have been here long enough not to believe all that I read in the newspapers. That is the only reply that I can give the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could assist us, simply as a matter of information.
Some of us would be surprised if the Head of a foreign State or anyone else could be invited, apparently by Parliament—that is by the House of Commons and the House of Lords—without the two Houses actually taking a decision to do so.
I understand—and this may have been the position in the past—that it is in fact the Government who extend an invitation to Mr. X to appear in the Princes' Chamber or Westminster Hall and that then, in effect, they invite us

to the party, too. That is one situation, which the Government have it entirely in their own hands to arrange, I suppose. But if the invitation is from the House of Commons and the House of Lords, I hope that that needs the approval of the two Houses.
When such occasions have occurred in the past, can you, Mr. Speaker, say whether, technically, they have been invitations from the two Houses, or have they been invitations from the Government to which they have also invited hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the matter. There has not been such a visit during my six years in the Chair—at any rate, not that I recall offhand. I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not reasonable to assume that if such an invitation is to be extended, it will be extended by you as Speaker of our House and by the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the House of Lords? Will you ascertain whether that is the position?

Mr. Speaker: I have just undertaken to look into the matter. If the rights of the House are concerned, I am concerned.
Like everyone else, I read the morning papers, and always on a Monday morning there is a little more news than usual.
I have nothing to add. I cannot help the House.

Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you write to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), may I please have a copy of the letter?

Mr. Speaker: I see no difficulty in that. If it will help the House I shall make a simple statement, if there is any interest in that, but I cannot say when it will be. I take time to consider these matters.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of Ports in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before the 23rd March 1982.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 23rd March may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 24th March 1982.

Report and Third Reading

2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.— (1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceeidings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatiory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and New Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on first allotted days

7.— (1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands

over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9. —(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (hut 110 others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10. — (1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill' are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—



(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Timetable motions are never welcome to the House, but, unfortunately, they are sometimes necessary. I admit that it is with some regret, and only after the most careful consideration, that the Government feel obliged to table this motion, although I am sure that it comes as no surprise to Labour Members, particularly those who are members of Standing Committee E.

Naturally we had hoped to secure the passage of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill without such a motion, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State made our attitude clear during the Second Reading debate when he said:
Provided that we make reasonable progress, the last thing that the Government want is a guillotine"—[Official Report, 19 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 240.]

Hon. Members will interpret "reasonable progress" differently, but, in the Government's view, progress has been slow—to the extent that if we did not take action the passage of the Bill through both Houses could be put in jeopardy.

Throughout the proceedings of the Bill so far the Opposition have made their objections to it very clear and they have used every legitimate means, as is their right, to seek to frustrate its passage. We were never in doubt about the degree of opposition that the Bill would receive from the Labour Party.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Is it not strange, in the light of the vehement opposition of which my right hon. Friend is speaking, that only one Opposition Back Bencher is present?

Mr. Pym: That may be so.
The debate in Committee on the sittings motion lasted nearly three hours. That was perhaps an indicative beginning. Clause 1 occupied eight sittings and over 25 hours of debate, during which time only eight groups of amendments were considered. Clause 2 occupied three sittings and 14 hours of debate, which were spent on six

groups of amendments. The Committee then moved to four sittings a week from 16 February, but even that did not have a commensurate impact on the pace of progress.
I shall not go through the full details of the time that was spent on clauses. One debate on one amendment, which the Committee must have found enjoyable, took nearly six hours, and the discussion ranged from Tudor history, through the rival merits of hill and valley sheep, to the film career of President Reagan. No doubt it was very enjoyable stuff, but it did not enable the Committee to make much progress.

Mr. Edward Rowlands: That was not out of order.

Mr. Pym: Of course it was not out of order. I never suggested that it was. I said that it was very enjoyable, but that it was not very helpful to progress.
By the end of last Thurday's sitting—the seventeenth sitting—after nearly 70 hours of debate, the Committee had dealt with only 11 clauses. Twenty-five clauses and four schedules remain to be considered. It was against that background that the Government reluctantly concluded that a guillotine was needed.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The Leader of the House has forgotten to tell us one thing in this chapter of the story. One fundamental piece of information is missing. I am referring to the absence of the articles of association, without which it was not possible to make progress on the first eight clauses.

Mr. Pym: I shall come to that matter during my remarks. The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue.
The Bill raises many issues that are important to the gas and oil industries, including those affecting the safety of North Sea operations. We are anxious that all the Bill's provisions are adequately discussed, but at the present rate of progress the Bill could still be in Committee as we approach the Summer Recess. Clearly that is not acceptable. It is, of course, the right and responsibility of the Opposition to oppose measures in which they do not believe, but it is also right and proper for the Government to promote their legislative programme and to see their measures on to the statute book within a reasonable time.
The purpose of this motion is to ensure that the passage of the Bill can be expedited with all the remaining issues sensibly debated. The motion provides for 10 further sittings which, if approved by the House, means that the Committee will have had over 110 hours in which to debate the Bill. We believe that to be a reasonable allocation of time. The motion instructs the Standing Committee to report the Bill to the House by 23 March and provides that if the Committee is sitting on that day, after the House has adjourned, it should report the Bill on 24 March.
Under paragraph 3 of the motion it will be for the Business Sub-Committee to determine the number of sittings between now and the time fixed for Report. The Government hope that the present four sittings a week will be retained until that time, when the motion will lead us to complete the Committee stage after the afternoon sitting. As I say, it is for the Business Sub-Committee to decide. The motion will enable another 10 sittings to take place before Report to deal with the remaining clauses and schedules. As is usual on these occasions, it is left to the


Business Sub-Committee to determine the compartments into which the Bill should be divided and the times at which debate should close.
Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading have been allocated a day and a half, with consideration on the first day coming to a conclusion at midnight. The Business Sub-Comittee will be able to decide how the time on Report is to be apportioned. I am sure that in deciding the allocation of time it will take account of the desire of hon. Members on both sides to have enough time to deal with the safety provisions in part IV.
Throughout the proceedings of the Committee, Ministers have done everything that they can to be as helpful as possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made available a commentary on clauses. He has arranged for briefing on many aspects to be provided to the Committee by BNOC and the BGC. It is proposed to circulate notes on safety matters to hon. Members on both sides.
I know the importance of the matter that was raised by the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) about the articles of association. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has told the Committee that he plans to make the articles available in draft, together with the memorandum of association, by the end of this week. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate the trouble that my right hon. Friend has taken to bring this material forward, given the complex technical work that is involved. There are precedents for the timing in this case and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, they are complex. The articles of association, in draft form, will be forthcoming shortly.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The fact that the articles are now to be made available does not affect the argument that the debates would have been shortened if those articles had been available as from clause 1. The fact remains that we shall not have an opportunity, except for a short period on Report, to debate the implications of the articles of association.

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to hold that view, but, to say the least, it is challengeable to say that time would have been saved. We do not accept that the work of the Committee has been held up because the articles were not available before. My right hon. Friend made clear the Government's policy on safeguards against changes in control in his speech on Second Reading.
More generally, Ministers have dealt fully with the many questions and points raised in Committee. I note, in particular, from the Official Report that on one occasion the Minister of State answered each of 16 questions asked by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). In this and in other respects they have done their best to assist hon. Members in their understanding of the various provisions and to answer their questions in that connection. They have also made every effort to accommodate the wishes of Opposition Members in the proceedings of the Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister of State offered to take part IV out of sequence in order to meet the wishes of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). Ultimately, the right hon. Gentleman decided not to take up that offer, and that is fair enough. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State withdrew a Government proposal to take schedule 1 after

clause 10—to which it relates—when Opposition Members made it clear that they were not yet ready to consider that schedule.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State arranged for the Committee to delay its sitting on 2 March until 7.30 pm, so that hon. Members could take part in a debate on gas prices. Therefore, the Government team did their best and went to every length to help the Committee's smooth running. However, at the end of the day there must be a limit to the length of time spent debating a Bill and, in the case of this Bill, that limit should now be set by means of the motion.
As I have said, however regrettable it may be, timetable motions are sometimes necessary. It may be fair to refer to a similar motion that was moved in 1975 and which referred to a similar Bill, the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill. That motion was moved after 60 hours in Committee. The right hon. Member for Lanark, North (Mr. Smith) then made various remarks about timetable motions and their occasional necessity. I cannot improve on those remarks.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am not insinuating that the right hon. Gentleman suggested that my 16 questions were irrelevant, but will he confirm that they were all relevant and legitimate?

Mr. Pym: I understand that they were relevant, legitimate and serious. Indeed, they received the serious answer that was called for. I have merely given ore example of the way in which Ministers tried to help all Committee Members.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: Although it may be fair for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the number of questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), should he not have struck a balance and referred to the number of questions asked by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet)?

Mr. Pym: Many questions were asked, but a "bank" of 16 was unusual and, therefore, worthy of comment.
The right hon. Member for Lanark, North said in 1975:
It would not be possible for any party that has held office in this country to object to timetable motions in principle, because it would have behind it a record of its own activities when in office. That applies to my own party as well as to the Conservative Party. There is a growing conviction that to make too much fuss about a timetable is indulging in a certain amount of hypocrisy."—[Official Report, 7 July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 162.]
I am bound to say that that is a very fair assessment. Although the motion is to be regretted, I have explained why, after the most careful consideration, the Government came to the conclusion that it was necessary to move it now, so that the Bill can reach the statute book in time and so that the remaining 25 clauses can be properly and fully debated. That is why I have moved the motion, and I ask the House to approve it.

Mr. John Silkin: In spring, the Lord President of the Council's fancy lightly turns to timetable motions. He has been remarkably consistent. Spring always comes rather early for him—on the second Monday in March. Last year, on the second Monday in March, he introduced a guillotine motion and he has done so again this year.
However, the two Bills involved are extraordinarily different. Last year's measure was the Transport Bill. The right hon. Gentleman told us that hon. Members should


not cite precedents from other timetable motions because every timetable motion referred to a different Bill and was, therefore, a separate issue. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has cited precedents today, I am entitled to refer to that Transport Bill. The Leader of the House referred to that important Bill and said that a timetable motion was needed because only one-fourteenth of the Bill had been studied. I think that five groups of amendments out of 70 have been debated. He said that, as only one-fourteenth of the Bill had been debated so late in the Session, a guillotine motion was necessary. What is the position today? Let us forget momentarily the rights and wrongs of the Bill. The Committee has reached clause 12, or has debated one-third of the Bill. There are 36 clauses and schedules, but many of the clauses still to be debated are nominal.
However, there has been an interesting development. Ten clauses have been dealt with in three weeks. Therefore, I cannot imagine why the Leader of the House should say that the Bill will not be completed until the Summer Recess. There seems to be a fault in his arithmetic. Given the present pace, the Bill will have left this House by the Whitsun Recess. Of course, no one can say what will happen to the Bill in the other place. Therefore, I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's indignation. He has said that the Opposition have legitimate objections to the Bill. Of course, we have legitimate objections to any controversial Bill. However, timetable motions are applied to only a few Bills. Although we argue and fight about Bills, the Government generally get their legislation. Therefore, we seem to be dealing with a question of, as the right hon. Gentleman said, reasonable progress. For such a controversial and difficult Bill, we have not made unreasonable progress.
What are the right hon. Gentleman's arguments? He cited a rather interesting debate that seemed to go on for a long time and to touch on topics that some of us might wrongly have thought to be on the borderlines of order. The Committee Chairman did not think such debate out of order, and he is undoubtedly always right. The right hon. Gentleman said that that debate took six hours, but he is not a child and neither am I. We have both been Chief Whips and know that there is a little thing called a closure meeting. Why on earth were the Government so incompetent as not to employ it? That would have shortened the argument then and there. Given that the argument ranged over so many topics, I cannot imagine that the Chair would not have accepted a closure motion three or four hours earlier. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's argument about that debate is not very good.
The right hon. Gentleman referred—by implication—to the Government's competence, or lack of it. That did not altogether surprise us. The Bill received its Second Reading on 19 January 1982. It is one of the most important, controversial and complex Bills to be introduced this Session, yet it received its Second Reading late in the day. Of course, our debates would take time. However, the pace in Committee has not been particularly slow. [Interruption.] There must have been a bit of incompetence as well as courtesy. Most of the courtesy was extended—as the right hon. Gentleman accepted—to perfectly legitimate questions, such as those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). The Government gave most of the answers courteously

and at some length. If anybody was taking the time, it sounds to me as though it was the Government Front Bench—

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The right hon. Gentleman was not there.

Mr. Silkin: Of course, I was not there. The Secretary of State, who was not there, must know that the Leader of the House was not there either. The Leader of the House and I can only judge by reading the Official Report of the proceedings of the various Committees and by talking to our colleagues. If the Secretary of State for Energy believes that every Leader of the House and every Shadow Leader of the House is present at every single Committee sitting, he knows very little about the workings of the House. Of course we were not there.

Mr. Peter Rost: The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not take part in the proceedings as I did, otherwise he would not try to mislead the House about the length of time taken by the Conservative Front Bench, or, indeed, by Conservative members of the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman had attended that Committee, he would have been thoroughly bored and frustrated by the tedious repetition and length of contributions from some Labour Members on that Committee—I am not referring to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) —and he would not have made such remarks to the House.

Mr. Silkin: I hold the view that interventions should be short to be effective. The longer they are, the less effective they are. I was not talking about Government Back Benchers. The poor devils are always in the difficulty that they must keep quiet because the Whips, want the Bill to go through. I know, because I have been a Chief Whip. The Government want their legislation, so the Conservative Back Benchers are bored and frustrated, particularly when all the good points are being made by Labour Members. What does one expect?
From what the Leader of the House said, it would appear that the detail with which the Government Front Bench dealt courteously with the Opposition's points inevitably took a great deal of time. That is all that I was saying; I was agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The point that my right hon. Friend makes about the Conservative Back Benchers is accurate, except in one respect. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) was responsible for one of the longest speeches in Committee, on an amendment that occupied a considerable amount of the Committee's time.

Mr. Silkin: My natural courtesy prevented me from pointing that out.
The Government will get this timetable motion. Governments always do. We know that. However, what is its real effect? It is that we shall not have fully debated part II before the guillotine falls. The Committee has reached clause 12 and there are a further four or five important clauses to be dealt with.
The Leader of the House made an astonishing remark concerning the articles of association of Britoil. He said that they will be available at the end of the week. That is only two weeks after the whole of the first part, dealing with oil, has been dealt with and disposed of ruthlessly by


the Government. That is absolute nonsense. How can one possibly deal with that in Committee when the clauses in question have already gone past?

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: If the motion goes through—and I hope that it does not—we shall have had 27 sittings, during only six of which will the Committee have seen the articles of association.

Mr. Silkin: I did say that there was a considerable amount of incompetence on the Conservative Benches. There is no doubt that that is true. The right hon. Gentleman is merely reaffirming the case. The Leader of the House rather slurred over the question of safety with regard to offshore activities. I think that he felt a little difficulty in putting the point across. That matter was dealt with on Second Reading by the Secretary of State in four throw-away words. All those matters would be destroyed by a timetable motion. Proper discussion would disappear.
Why do the Government want to rush the Bill through? There is no shortage of legislative time. This is the Session of all Sessions when the Leader of the House has shown more competence and ability with regard to the allocation of time than I have ever seen. He knows that I believe that. I have always paid tribute to his ability to do it. He has managed for the first time to cut the amount of time spent on legislation, so that we can spend a little more time on other matters. Such legislative time as there is should be made available for the most important, the most party controversial legislation.
Can anyone imagine anything more controversial than the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill? Incidentally, it is amazing that the BNOC rip-off is being discussed at the very time when North Sea oil prices are falling and destroying the current value of the assets, which may well fall to 50 or 60 per cent. below face value. It is amazing at such a time to be told that we have to sell the assets quickly. This is the moment of all moments that has been chosen for the destruction of our assets.
I suppose the answer is that ideology, particularly on the Government Front Bench, will always come to the fore. Privatisation is the Government's particular ideology at the moment. I suggest that there is a better word than "privatisation". The new verb for what is being done ought to be "to Amersham"—to sell off publicly owned assets at bargain basement prices, regardless of the public interest. We know how strong the Government's ideology is in this respect. We have seen it with British Telecom, Cable and Wireless, British Aerospace, and Amersham International. We know that the biggest "Amersham" of all is the Secretary of State for Energy, so that we are not surprised that this measure should be before us today.
All the parties on the Opposition Benches oppose the timetable motion. It is not just the usual procedural opposition to a timetable motion; it is an opposition based upon substance. We believe that it is an evil Bill, a bad Bill and a wicked Bill from the point of view of the nation's prospects and chances. We also believe that there has been a deliberate attempt to prevent its being properly discussed and to prevent the people from understanding what is being done in their name. I call upon my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the timetable motion in the Lobby.

Mr. Tony Speller: This is apparently a simple, straightforward procedural matter in the sense

that, whichever Government are in power, they make the same comments, and whichever party is in Opposition it makes the same comments. On the Front Benches there are right hon. and hon. Members who have done it before and who doubtless expect to do it again. On behalf of the Back Benchers, I express the hope that the system will Abe changed, so that it will not be done again as a matter of ritual.
In Committee we have spent 17 days signing letters, sealing envelopes, attempting to make quick telephone calls and to do some of our work as Members of Parliament, simply because we do not have a timetable motion at the beginning of the Committee stage. I hope that sooner or later some change will be made in that respect.
I am in favour of the motion today—we must have a timetable—but how sad it is to those of us who are relatively new in this place and who are still keen on seeking to assist the passage of legislation. We have enjoyed good fellowship in Committee. Some of our sittings were more like good Rotary meetings than anything else. We have been good friends on each side of the Committee, and extremely good humoured most of the time—there have been one or two excellent witticisms that we have been able to use afterwards in other places—but, alas, there has been virtually no progress, so that inevitably we have come to the need for a timetable motion, with the usual ritual speeches.
It is not easy for a relatively new Member of Parliament to speak in complete support of the Government and of the Bill while knowing that, apart from saying the ritual "Aye" and even an occasional "No", one is contributing nothing to the work of the House. I feel a deep sense of sorrow, almost of shame, that we have spent so much time and achieved so little.
I have enjoyed every moment of the Committee, and I now believe my children when they say that they can do their homework and watch television at the same time, because that is what most of us were doing, although without the television. Of course, it depended on the programme. When the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) spoke, we were riveted and all sounds of writing ceased. However, when one or two other hon. Members wished to speak, the rustling became quite remarkable.
I can see no alternative to this timetable motion. It was strange that the Opposition spokesman spent almost 12 minutes in Committee reading out the previous jobs of Government members of the Committee. As a shopkeeper, I was greatly honoured to be called, I believe, a company director. That is how we are normally referred to in court, should any of us ever reach court. Of course, most of us do not wish to reach court. My late father said that only a pauper can afford to plead not guilty and that one should avoid the courts as much as one can. That comment is, I hope, an example of the entertaining chit-chat that we have had across the Committee room. However, we must try to get the timetable motion through and, in the remaining time, try to discuss the Bill and make useful comments. I have heard many useful comments from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, but there is no doubt that the preponderance of time was spent taking up the time. Many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee felt that we could have done slightly better than that as the time passed.
When talking about a motion such as this, it is not unfair to say that every newer Member of the House who has served in Committee on such a major issue has similar feelings to mine. We wish only that this ritual debate had taken place a little sooner in the proceedings. The Bill is perhaps the most important one of this Parliament. It is certainly crucial to those hon. Members who are interested in energy. It is a great shame that we may discuss it more today in this Chamber than in Committee.
This system is an unacceptable waste of parliamentary time. It does us no good in the eyes and thoughts of the public who come to listen to us in Committee and who may share our good humour and friendship, but who will not admire the way in which we conduct our business. We have sat through mornings, afternoons and one extremely pleasant late evening which went through to the early hours of the morning. At the end of those sessions I knew five excellent jokes told to us by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands). I have used four of them and raised laughs, but I raised groans with the other. However, as the night wore through, I felt that I must pay attention.
There were also occasions, because of the preponderance of hon. Members from north of the border—who have some form of Thursday exeat, which those of us who come from Devonshire with a five-and-a-half-hour journey home would wish to share—when I needed simultaneous translation. That applied especially to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who is not with us now, and was not present at all the Committee sessions, because there were occasions when the exchanges across the table were such that the ordinary Sassenach was at some disadvantage.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Where is the ordinary Sassenach?

Mr. Speller: The minority of us from England have enjoyed ourselves tremendously and we feel that we can now take our holidays across the border with a greater sense of security.
This is a short debate, and I suspect that other hon. Members will wish to voice similar thoughts to mine, or, if they are old hands, similar thoughts to those of my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). I support the motion. We must have the guillotine. I pray only that on the next long Committee on which I serve—we will consider that sometimes the great British public do not think as highly of the House as I, and may believe that we waste our time a little. Sometimes they are right.

Mr. Dick Douglas: The major point of substance about the apparent delay in progress has been that admitted by the Leader of the House—the appalling lack of basic material about the articles and memorandum of association. The first part of the Bill cannot be discussed in the absence of those documents. The Secretary of State, during a Committee session last week, told us that those important documents might be made available in draft form by the end of this week. I have no idea of the exact nature and scope of the documents, but I imagine that there will be many pages and details for us to plough through. The part of the Bill to which they relate has been dealt

with, so we must return to these important aspects on Report. The Secretary of State must know in his heart of hearts that the reason for some of the delay and difficulty is the non-receipt of these important documents.
The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) has some experience of the House, but I have a little more. Oppositions fight for time. Time is the safety valve here. If the Government deny time to the Opposition, they deny the safety valve in the democratic process. One argument of the Leader of the House is that he wishes to get the Bill through the House before the Easter Recess. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who is an extremely intelligent and charitable gentleman: what is the haste? If world oil prices had remained stable there might have been an argument for putting this important national asset into the hands of the Secretary of State so that he could put it on the market at the end of this year, as he originally intended. That would certainly have helped the public sector borrowing requirement. That is part of the strategy of the Government. We all know that the reason for the original haste was that the Government were searching for public assets that they could flog off and therefore reduce the PSBR.
The Secretary of State is not a complete fool in such matters. We have said in Committee that he used to write the Lex column in the Financial Times. He knows that this is probably the worst possible time to put an asset such as Britoil on the market. There is instability, OPEC is having an emergency meeting and Saudi Arabia is debating whether to reduce its output of oil by more than half our production from the North Sea. Saudi Arabia argues that it will maintain oil at $34 a barrel because it can turn the tap back. At the same time the Secretary of State congratulates BNOC because it proposes to cut the price of oil from the North Sea by $4 a barrel and thereby use our resources to cause a reduction in world oil prices.
If the Secretary of State is right in his forecasts, I cannot see how he can argue that there is stability in the world oil market. Whoever the Government's merchant bank advisers are, they cannot argue that this is a good year to put our national assets on to the market. There is no need for haste.
There is no reason for haste in relation to the gas market. The Secretary of State said in Committee that 5 trillion cubic feet of gas are awaiting exploitation and that British Gas has been obdurate. The total reserves of gas are about 40 trillion cubic feet. There is no haste to loosen the gas market so that further exploitation and exploration can take place.
Safety is an important part of the Bill. As a palliative, the Secretary of State has said that British Gas and BNOC will submit their views on safety. I have no doubt that their views will be useful, but what about the trade unions and the people who do the job? What opportunity will they have to give evidence? That evidence should be given. It is important in the light of the recent Norwegian and Canadian experiences. We have already had a full report and a debate on safety aspects in the North Sea, but we shall not have an adequate opportunity to examine fully the safety aspects.
Safety is a non-party matter. To play party politics with safety would be shocking, but the Leader of the House is in danger of doing so, because that is what the guillotine means. He intends to drive the Bill through the Committee to satisfy some peculiar Government timetable. If there is a delay in passing the Bill, it will not necessarily be by this


House. Delay could happen in another place, because there can be no guillotine there. I am not willing to allow the Bill to be rushed through because of the Government's fears that it might be held up by excessive debate in another place.
The Leader of the House has offered no evidence of filibustering. He said that the debates had been good-natured and relevant. We had some good replies from the Minister of State, some passable replies from the Secretary of State and some middling to passable replies from the Under-Secretary of State.
We need more detailed information about the Government's policy generally and in relation to safety in particular. The safety provisions should not be at the beginning of the Bill. They should have been left out and submitted for consideration under the new Select Committee procedure. The vital safety aspects should be dealt with in a non-political way. We have had a report and massive experience in the North Sea and internationally. We need to know the views not only of BNOC and British Gas, but of the host of other participating organisations.
I deplore the timetable motion. When the Leader of the House reflects, he will realise that, in relation to safety, he is playing politics with people's lives. That should not happen.

Mr. David Myles: A tremendous amount of humbug is connected with a motion such as this. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas). In his speech against the timetable motion I did not detect any argument against imposing a discipline so that we can debate the Bill sensibly and discuss the two sides to the arguments.
I entered the House on 3 May 1979. This is the third time that I have been a member of a Committee on a Bill that has been guillotined. It is the second time that I have taken part in a debate on a timetable motion.
The Committees on which I sat previously were different from this Committee. They were much more antagonistic and much less friendly. I give credit to the Opposition Front Bench and to all hon. Members, including even the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who took up most of the time in our debates. The hon. Member uses invective, but has a smile on his face when he sits down. He knows that nobody really believes him and that nobody will take offence at what he says. It is a pity that the hon. Member, who has an almost delicious sense of humour, comes across badly in the media because when the awful things that he says appear in cold print the spirit of his remarks are lost.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: It is unfair to speak about my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), because he is using his invective in Cuba against President Castro. My hon. Friend is a member of the foreign affairs group.

Mr. Myles: I am grateful to the hon. Member because I was about to say that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire is in central America, or somewhere. I am not sure what line he will be taking.
If the Committee had been conducted under the rules of the radio parlour game "Just a Minute" in which there

can be no repetition, no deviation and no hesitation, the Bill would have completed more of its Committee stage. Seriously, up to now there has not been too much serious debate in the Committee, but the Bill is important and serious. It deserves serious and balanced argument from both sides.
This is part of my objection to what has been called a ritual by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, Non h. Everyone knew that there would be a timetable motion. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said in Committee that there was likely to be a guillotine. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said that he wished that all Bills were guillotined, possibly so that the Scottish Nationalists could have a better chance of having their names printed on the front page of the Dundee Courier and Advertiser. He said that there should be a guillotine. I think so, too.
I admit that I was not present at the late-night sitting. I was slightly insulted when the Whip said that it had been decided that the two elder members of the Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Sir R. Fairgrieve) and I—should be excused on account of our age. I thought that I had far greater stamina than many of the younger members of the Committee. However, although I was slightly insulted. I did not argue, because I knew that I could read the whole debate in the record. I also knew that I need not waste my time reading the record because nearly all the debate was a time-wasting exercise.
I realise why Opposition Members take up the time of such Committees and try to delay measures of which they thoroughly disapprove. If we were in Opposition, we would try to use that weapon as well. I believe that we should find a more civilised—although the Committee is civilised—and business-like way of conducting our affairs so that we do not need to take up time in Committee arid on the Floor of the House in debating a timetable motion. That seems to be a contradiction in terms.
The debate reflects the way in which the House is supposed to work in a number of other spheres. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North and I are talking entirely as a result of what we think and not as a result of some research assistant's notes or from Whips Office notes. We are talking as practical people who became Members of Parliament recently. We are disturbed at the complicated ways in which the business of the House is carried out.
There are two types of hon. Members on both sides of the House. One is the intelligent, highly educated and sophisicated person who sees the problems of politics in a complicated way, such as the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas). The hon. Gentleman left me aghast at the vast knowledge that he was always so willing to display in the debate without looking at a note. He could reel off figures and the names of the oil rigs that he had visited. I was greatly impressed, but then I thought that he was telling us only the little that he knew. He did not reveal the vast amount that he did not know, but he revealed almost all that he knew about the oil industry.
I am interested in the Bill. However, I feel a little inhibited in that one of the only things that I was able to do in Committee was to intervene on a point of order at one stage to ask whether speaking about the Hillhead by-election had anything to do with the Bill. I was a little annoyed for the simple reason that the gas comes ashore at St. Fergus in the constituency of my hon. Friend the


Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie). It is not far away from Banff. On three separate occasions I have been out on oil rigs—I have visited the Forties, Ninian and Murchison fields. In the North-East of Scotland we have a close interest in energy. I felt inhibited because it was frowned upon that Conservative Members should speak in the run-up to what everyone knew would be a timetable motion.
I realise that it is cutting the ground from under our feet, but if ever we happen to land on the Opposition Benches again—as things are going that will not be likely for a long time, certainly in my parliamentary career—I shall understand the fixation of Opposition Members. However, they could make logical and sensible points that could be printed in the Dundee Courier and Advertiser with merit to the hon. Member for Dundee, East if that were possible.
I wholeheartedly support the timetable motion. I wish to goodness that we had had a reasonable timetable on the Bill right from the start so that we could have got down to the business in the Bill and debated it throughly, knowing that the articles of association were to come. I feel slightly guilty on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the articles of association were not available in Committee. Opposition Members have a point about that. However, there was no need to labour it time and again. There was no need to take up the Committee's time and to be so repetitive.
I support the timetable motion. I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East, who said that he would support timetable motions for every Bill, will also support it.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Members for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) and for Banff (Mr. Myles) have argued that there is no alternative but to support the timetable motion. There is an alternative. The hon. Member for Banff hinted at it towards the end of his speech.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not wish to intervene so early in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I should like to draw attention to the fact that three Scottish Members have been called and so far as I am aware not one English Member has been called.

Mr. Speller: May I say that I resent that remark?

Dr. Mabon: I do not want to interrupt this debate between the nationalities, but so far as I am aware the Lord President of the Council is an Englishman, and the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) is an Englishman, which is not bad going as the debate must finish at twenty minutes to seven o'clock. I had better get on.
There is an alternative to the timetable motion. Every Government know that. At the commencement of the Committee stage the Government and the Opposition could have tried to agree a programme. We shall now be compelled to do so. The Bill is vital, not only because of the public aspects of safety and so on, but politically, as it is concerned with the Government's views and prejudices. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and I are certainly not aware of a suggestion that we should have had a voluntary timetable.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Government did not approach anyone.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: It was extremely difficult to negotiate any form of timetable. The hon. Member for Devon, North mentioned a set timetable, but the basic documentation, such as the articles of association, has still not come from the Government. It was near impossible to reach an agreement between the parties on a sensible and methodical timetable without the documents.

Dr. Mabon: That confirms what I believed.
The alternative to the Opposition weapon of time is rational argument in a decent compass of time. Anyone who has held a ministerial post knows that Bills are not always perfect or as effective as one would like. They need to be discussed and changed. Even within the guillotine timetable there will be batches of Government amendments, as they will have changed their mind or been advised by their officials of defects.
The Government are merely continuing the bad habit of successive Parliaments. They are disregarding the idea of voluntary timetables and allowing, as they see it, the Opposition to waste time before bringing in a guillotine. That is a waste of rational debate. If the Government were really fair they would agree that too much time has been wasted because they did not show the Opposition the articles of association and give them help to understand the Bill so as to agree a voluntary timetable.
The Government, of course, in that case would not get the Bill by Easter. It is farcial to believe that we can rationally debate the remaining clauses in 10 sittings. I have seen many timetable motions in my 25 years in Parliament. This is one of the cruellest that I have witnessed. Both sides play a bad game with timetable motions. Here, for example, on Report and Third Reading we are to be limited to two days. Hon. Members on the Government Benches cannot reasonably support the motion.
We have had two good-natured speeches from Conservative Members. I am becoming sick of hearing how good natured the Committee is. We are dealing with a matter that is fundamental to the British people. It is serious, not only for those who work in the North Sea, but in the disposition of our assets. I do not like inordinate friendliness now that we have come to a guillotine.
The hon. Member for Banff said that we had always been under the threat of a guillotine. If so, it is even more shameful that the Government did not ask for a voluntary timetable.

Mr. Myles: As the right hon. Gentleman says, the Bill is important. It is important to the Government's strategy for breaking up the centralised control of our assets.

Dr. Mabon: Whichever Government are in power, they are entitled to get their business. In the last analysis the House is not entitled to deny them that.
Debate on the Bill is not being used to impede other business. We have all seen an innocent Bill filibustered to hold up another Bill, but this Bill is being argued on its merits or demerits.
In the 17 sittings so far we have not had inordinately long speeches. We did sit all night once. Like the hon. Member for Banff, I took advantage of my years to go home. Talking nonsense until 6 am or 7 am is a waste of intelligence and rational time, of which we are all short. We are, the good book says, allotted a certain span. It is silly to waste time on nonsense. I salute hon. Members


who had to stay or who decided to stay. It was a feat of endurance. I have done it many times, but it is no less foolish. It advances argument not one whit.
Apart from that sitting, it has been a good Committee. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) may have been over-generous, but I believe that we had ministerial replies which were full of substance, because we had no substance to begin with. These ghostlike creatures, the articles of association, are to make their spectral appearance only at the end of this week, I believe.

Mr. Cunliffe: The Dead Sea scrolls.

Dr. Mabon: We pleaded for the articles of association even in draft or in part rather than not at all. Tooth by tooth we extracted from the Minister of State and the Secretary of State what they would mean.
The Social Democrats and the Liberals do not want the old system to continue of one side doing equally bad things to the other. I remember on one occasion when, through the night, the House discussed the cheese ration. I remember in 1950 when Adam McKinlay was denied a pair for a vote at 7 am, even though his wife was dying.
The late Lady Tweedsmuir told him to go home, as she would refuse to vote. She had guts. Those silly days were ended when the Labour Government said that prayers would last for only one and a half hours. At a stroke we stopped one of the most farcical post-war parliamentary nonsenses. One side or other must say that it will lay down the weapon. I should like the Government to say today that it really is wrong, on reflection, to pass the motion.
I believe that it is right for the Government to negotiate with the Opposition parties about when they will get their Bill, if it is not at Easter, as is here proposed, then at Whitsun. Even then there will be plenty of time to get it through the House of Lords and to bring it back here for discussion so that by the end of the Session the Secretary of State has his Bill if he insists on having it in the way in which it is now packaged.
That is essentially the case that the Government must answer tonight. It is not the yah-boo of past quotations and present intentions, but a rational argument. This is an important Bill. Parts of it need to be debated properly and fully both here and in the other place. The Government ought seriously to consider withdrawing the motion and negotiating a voluntary timetable that will satisfy the Opposition and all the members of the Committee as well as other hon. Members on the Government Benches.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am not a member of the Standing Committee on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, so I have not experienced the hours of ennui on its Back Benches updating my joke book so I cannot begin to match the good humour and wit of my hon. Friends the Members for Banff (Mr. Myles) and for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). That will probably satisfy the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon), who found my hon. Friends' remarks rather too good-tempered. My speech will be less so.
The Bill is extremely important. Both sides of the House agree about that. Anything to do with the price and availablity of oil, gas and energy supplies, on which industry depends, is of immense importance. The general principles of the Bill were debated on Second Reading and the principle of privatisation and competition approved by the House.
As I am not a member of the Committee I have riot heard the hours of debate there, but it is clear from comments that I have heard over the weeks from my hon. Friends, from what has been said today and from the reactions of Opposition Members that the efforts of the Opposition have been directed against acceptance of the principle of the Bill as approved by the House and not to trying to improve or modify the Bill as their experience and views dictate.
It is clear that the Opposition have sought to emasculate and to destroy the Bill. I am not in the least surprised to hear that. That is the Pavlovian reaction of the Labour Party when it is suggested that the public sector should be anything but expanded—their ears close and their minds stop working, but their tongues go on freewheel.
There are two reasons why I want to see the Bill passed quickly, apart from the fact that I support its general principles. First, oil exploration and search have been proved to be much healthier in private hands. That is how North Sea oil resources were developed in the first place—without a State company and without Government cash. Private investment and private ingenuity started that development wih a speed and effectiveness far greater than the public sector could ever have matched. As a result, the community has benefited faster from the production of oil and gas and extra revenues have accrued to the Exchequer. Those benefits and revenues are much more likely to increase as a result of the greater privatisation of initiative and control which the Bill proposes.
There is a further consequence which is especially desirable at a time of recession. The capital sums raised by the sale can release funds for job-creating purposes. I should have thought that Opposition Members would welcome those objectives and results. Alternatively, the funds could be used to reduce the public sector borrowing and improve the outlook for interest rates, upon which future employment also depands.
It is a great shame that Opposition Members seek to delay a Bill for general dogmatic reasons when its effects would be of so much assistance in solving the problems of the recession, the economy and the high levels of unemployment, which are the subject of constant complaint by Opposition Members. Nevertheless, I realise that, because of their ideological attitudes, Opposition Members will discount those views. I remind them, however, that in 1977–78, under the general supervision of the IMF, the Labour Government sold off a large section—17 per cent. —of their North Sea holding in the shape of British Petroleum. That was part and parcel of temporarily greatly improved economic management and the economy moved much closer to an even keel as a result, although if Opposition Members are honest with themselves they will admit that those benefits were thrown away in the run-up to the General Election.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: When the Burmah Oil Company got into trouble, its shares fell to the Treasury. The Labour Government subsequently decided to reduce their holding to 51 per cent. That does not represent the selling off of 17 per cent. of North Sea oil assets.

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I shall not pursue the details, which I suspect he knows better than I do, but is he suggesting that no BP shares found their way into private hands as a result of that Government decision?

Dr. Mabon: No.

Mr. Lloyd: That is exactly the point that I am making, and it is the point of the Bill, that North Sea oil assets that are at present owned by the Government should be transferred to private hands. I see no difference of principle. The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but it does not seem to affect the one I am making.
The Bill has another beneficial effect which leads me to hope to see it on the statute book in a reasonable time. Great benefit will flow from allowing gas producers freedom to find their own larger commercial customers. That is a much-needed change. The director-general of the Chemical Industries Association has said:
In recent months a number of chemical firms have requested and have been refused additional or new supplies of gas even in cases where greatly improved energy efficiency would have been achieved. Thus we have a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation where additional or new industrial gas supplies are not available to companies despite a 10 per cent. fall in industrial gas sales due to the recession. We are told that new supplies will not be available until 1984–85. There is no doubt that the best way forward is to permit wider freedom of access to gas supplies. It is misleading to argue that a monopoly to purchase supplies ensures the best price and availability to the final industrial gas user, even though the position may be comfortable for the operation of the monopoly. World evidence does not support such an opinion. We need the fresh breeze of competition to keep the supply industry on its toes and to ensure that energy is available to industry at an internationally competitve price as the world market for our products recovers.
That is absolutely right. There should be no delay in creating the conditions for which the director-general calls. That is why I strongly support the motion. It will put the Bill on the statute book at reasonable speed.
Finally, safety has been mentioned. This is an important consideration if these arrangements are made for piping gas ashore and producers to supply customers direct. It is appalling that so much time seems to have been spent in Committee on general principles that were settled on Second Reading, when there are important practical questions relating to such dangerous matters as these later in the Bill.
I hope that the House will adopt the timetable programme so that a proper amount of time can be allocated to these extremely important questions on which I believe that Opposition Members, especially those who have connections with trade unions and people working in industry, would be well placed to make practical and helpful suggestions.
I commend the motion to the House.

5 pm

Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not wish to pursue the points of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) very far, except to hope that he will find time to read the Official Report of some of the Committee debates. He will then appreciate that a considerable part of the Committee's time has been spent pursuing one of the items that attracted his attention—the fact that funds will flow from privatisation. The Opposition sought to ensure that those funds would be more wisely spent than the Government's record so far would lead one to expect.
I found the speeches of the hon. Members for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) and Banff (Mr. Myles) quite delightful. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Devon, North. I believe that all Bills should be timetabled. I take a revolutionary view of Standing Committees. I do not see why experts should not be called to give relevant

evidence. Indeed, I suggested that Rothschild and Morgan Grenfell might properly be called to give evidence on the highly relevant question of Amersham International. Timetables are desirable. There must be safeguards, of course, because the Opposition's only weapon is time. Nevertheless, I trust that the next Labour Government will be prepared to introduce timetable motions.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may appreciate that it is not my experience of the Committee on this Bill that has led me to that conclusion. I have always said that I should be reluctant to serve on demanding Standing Committees after the one that you chaired with dedication such that we found it extremely hard to stray from the path of relevance, just as it was impossible for us to do so in Committee on this Bill. I was delighted that the Lord President of the Council acknowledged that references to the poem that I quoted, which was entirely relevant, and to Tudor history were not out of order. I should have hated to have incurred that criticism.
The points that we have sought to make in Committee are important, as I hope that the hon. Member for Fareham will recognise, not from the point of view of any dogma of ours, but to ensure that the application of the Government's dogma does not inflict too great a disadvantage on the national interest.
The Minister of State, whom we regard with some cordiality, claimed in the Committee to be meticulous in his provision of replies, and there were periods when he dedicated himself to that purpose. On one occasion, he answered with care 16 questions from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Nevertheless, I, too, asked him a large number of questions and the aswers were not entirely satisfactory.
My questions to the Minister were basic and fundamental. I believe for example, that it was entirely relevant to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that between 1973 and 1980, year by year, the share of the United Kingdom continental shelf orders accruing to British industry had increased. When the Labour Government took office, only about one-third of the orders arising from offshore contracts were fulfulled by British industry. By the end of Labour's term of office, that had increased to 79 per cent. —a very commendable rate of progress. In the first year of the Conservative Government, however, for the first time since 1973, the share of orders fell fairly substantially from 79 per cent. to 71 per cent. Representing an area of special steels, which is a highly relevant industry, I felt it right to press that point and to suggest to the Minister that steps should be taken to guarantee that that fall would not continue, and that British industrial interests would be protected. I have received no satisfactory assurance that this privatisation, which will take the Government further away from the role of influence and involvement in decision making, will have any advantage for British industry, so the assumption about the Minister's meticulous approach scarcely extends to that important matter.
I also asked a number of related questions. I referred to a number of oilfields in which BNOC is involved—in some cases the involvement is substantial—and asked for an absolute assurance that investment in industrial plant relating to those fields would not lead to a diminution of their contribution to the economy. Again, no adequate response was forthcoming.
I illustrated my point by reference to the Piper and Claymore fields of Occidental. The House will recall that


a couple of years ago great public attention was given to the mutual admiration of Dr. Hammer and the Prime Minister. The television companies projected and presented the image of a massive mutual confidence which would be of enormous advantage to Britain. When it was later discovered, in October or November last year, that Occidental's plans had been substantially cut, the media unfortunately did not give that the attention that they had given to the original announcements. It is right that the Committee should consider the implications of matters of that kind, as British industry cannot afford to take the blows that may result from these changes.
It is also right that the instability of the Government's policy should be considered in detail by the Committee. We pointed out that since they came to office the Government have changed the offshore tax regime on seven occasions. No doubt changes in one direction or another will make tomorrow the eighth occasion. The pace of offshore development is not helped by rapid changes in tax arrangements or legislation. Unfortunately, we have still not received adequate assurances about that.
The application of a timetable may be against the national interest in respect of serious safety problems which may arise with regard to gas. Only last week, I produced for the Committee evidence of the impressive safety record of British Gas in the installation of appliances of all kinds. It is clear that people wishing to have gas appliances installed in their homes stand a far better chance of the work being carried out with complete safety by British Gas than by some cowboy operator. I provided all the figures, so I shall not labour the point now, but we have received no satisfactory assurances about safety.
We have also not received a satisfactory response to the evidence of the weeks following the original announcement by the then Minister of State for Consumer Affairs about the disposal of gas showrooms. It is clear that, within days of that announcement, companies began to arrange for and to initiate the import of gas appliances. I believe that one of the responsibilities of this or any Government is to ensure that British industrial interests are properly protected. I see no advantage or virtue whatever in the Government embarking on a policy that will bring comfort to our industrial competitors and lead to further contraction and redundancy in Britain. Undoubtedly, if the gas showrooms close, foreign manufacturers will gain considerable benefit.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Why?

Mr. Hardy: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to add to that, I will give way. It seems that he does not.
Within a week of the announcement that the gas showrooms were to be closed, The Daily Telegraph reported that shiploads and lorryloads of gas appliances were on their way to this country. There are a number of reasons for it. One of the reasons, which was the subject of questions earlier today, is that foreign Governments are eager to assist their industries, while our Government stand aloof and rather distant. That has been the case with energy prices.
The most important aspect of energy, which has already been touched on with reference to the articles of association, is price. We have been given little guidance, and the Committee, in the view of one or two Conservative Members, was expected to rubber-stamp the

Government's proposals, albeit without having seen the articles of association, and in the face of the appalling experience of the Amersham disposal.
I hope that the House and the country will note the relevant suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). The Secretary of State would like to go down as the man who was responsible for the biggest programme of privatisation in our history. He would welcome that. He would not welcome that if a long view is taken, but he ought to accept responsibility for the implementation of my right hon. Friend's suggestion, and for the word "Amersham" to go down as an appropriate new word that could be used as an alternative to "profligacy" to describe someone acting culpably and in opposition to the national interest.

Mr. Myles: I noticed in Committee that Labour Members were always anxious to give way in order to take up more time. I wish to refer to Amersham and to the selling of BNOC shares. If the shares go on to the market and are bought by employees or others—private small investors—and the price goes down, will the hon. Gentleman complain, or will he say that that serves the purchasers right?

Mr. Hardy: In the first debate on Amersham I suggested, and was subjected to a certain amount of ridicule from Conservative Members, that if they were to dispose of the company, given the tributes that they had paid to the work force, the least that they could do was to establish a co-operative.
My second point, which aroused even more anger and opposition from Conservative Members, was that before the Bill became law, the Government should say specifically by how much the nation should benefit, and that the House should not approve the proposition until there was more information about the economic consequences of the disposal. It may be that, had the Government displayed more responsibility and caution over Amersham last week, the national interest and the Government's reputation might be better.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House of the price at which the Labour Government launched the shares of BP, and the price at which the shares were quoted when they finally appeared on the market? Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that this sale of public assets to the private sector represented a sale of about 9 per cent. of North Sea oil production?

Mr. Hardy: I always think that it is a pity that hon. Members who have not been members of the Committees should take part in a timetable debate— [HON. MEMBERS): "Why?"] I am trying to explain, and I am prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) if he wishes to speak.
We are all extremely busy. Those outside do not understand how much work hon. Members have to do. I doubt whether the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) has read even one of the many volumes of reports of the Committee's proceedings. He may have started to read one. I hope that he finds entertainment and enlightment there, but if he goes through them all he will see that the Committee devoted considerable attention to the matter to which he referred, and I do not propose to be excessively repetitive.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have read the reports of the Committee's proceedings, and


I read with care many of his speeches. On one occasion he spoke for 20 minutes without mentioning oil, gas or enterprise. He preferred to talk about Sir Arthur Bryant and J. K. Galbraith. He should withdraw what he said about me.

Mr. Hardy: I am astonished. The hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that we have to be extremely careful about amendments that may not include the words "oil and gas", but are, nevertheless, relevant. The House may find it boring, but I should explain to the hon. Gentleman the relevance of my reference to the Tudor period, to which the Leader of the House referred. I described how Queen Elizabeth I saw the error of her ways and did an economic U-turn and decided to change her economic policies. I suggested that what was good for Queen Elizabeth I was good for the Prime Minister. It seemed to me that the model of Queen Elizabeth in the sixteenth century had some relevance to our current economic position.

Viscount Cranborne: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a strong academic background and he will, therefore, recall that one of the evils of our economic situation in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries was that there was far too much granting of monopoly by the Crown. Will the hon. Gentleman draw the same conclusion that my hon. Friends and I have drawn on that subject?

Mr. Hardy: I doubt whether any of my ancestors enjoyed the benefit of a sale of a monopoly in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. No doubt the hon. Gentleman could enlighten us about such sales. The fact remains that in a relatively similar period of our history there was a dramatic U-turn that should be repeated by the Government.
I hope that in the wretchedly meagre time provided for further consideration of the details of the Bill we shall get answers to the questions that have already been asked.
I particularly ask the Secretary of State to ensure that more attention is paid to the last matter that exercised the Committee's mind on Thursday. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) moved an amendment to provide funds for general conservation. I suggested—I hope in a non-partisan manner; Conservative Members will know whether I was partisan—that the removal of State influence offshore, which was inevitable, given the Government's proposals, and the need for greater provision for conservation made the amendment entirely appropriate.
I do not think that Conservative Members spoke in favour of the amendment, but I felt that some of them could see merit in our argument. Unfortunately, the Under-Secretary who wound up briefly referred only to energy conservation and a visit to Newcastle. The whole argument that I advanced in, I hope, a non-partisan manner, and on behalf, I believe, of all the conservation bodies in these islands, received no response. I hope that sooner or later a more generous attitude will be displayed. I regret that the answer given on that occasion was grossly unsatisfactory.
There has already been reference to the Tudor period and the economic policies of Elizabeth I. The most distinguished citizen from the Rother Valley constituency was Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Stratford. He was

impeached. His offence was far less serious than that being perpetrated by the Secretary of State in the Bill. I only hope that, as my party proceeds to prepare itself for the next general election, maintaining its commitment entirely to the cause of parliamentary democracy, it will during that period of preparation—

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Without bloodshed.

Mr. Hardy: —and without bloodshed, at this stage anyway, look up the references and study the precedents to see how we can reintroduce the principle and practice of impeachment. It has never been more justified than it is in relation to the Bill.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I always enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) on almost any subject. I enjoyed the visit to Sir Arthur Bryant and J. K. Galbraith. I should have enjoyed listening to the hon. Gentleman speak about badgers, on which he is an expert, or on moles, a subject on which I once consulted him. I shall, however, pursue only his remarks in relation to Amersham International Ltd.
It would be wrong not to make it clear that the benefit of hindsight has been applied by many sudden experts to this issue. They do not perhaps realise that if the issue had been pitched in a different way—for instance, by way of tender—or if the price had been slightly higher, the net amount received by the Government at the end of the day might have been lower because of the substantial amount that they received by way of interest on the large number of applications for shares. The large number of applications also enabled those sponsoring the issue to make sure that the smaller applicants were granted a higher proportion of the shares than larger applicants, including the pension funds of the mineworkers and others. It would be wrong if the record were not put straight on that point.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman talks of the benefit of hindsight. Some hon. Members serving on the Committee not only found that Amersham was predictable, but that it was predicted, foreseeable and actually foreseen.

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) quoted an example of a commentator who, he reported, was able to show that the price was not as high as it might have been. I put it to the hon. Member that the press comment at the time of the issue was by no means unanimous. An issue needs to be pitched in such a way that it is attractive to those who might participate. If there is a good response, that is a success and not a failure. It is wrong to say that the price was incorrectly pitched and that everyone knew this beforehand. That is not the situation.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Does my hon. Friend recall that about a year ago when this matter was first discussed the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), speaking for the Opposition, was insistent that when this launch took place the Government should not go down the route of seeking to get what he called the highest price available but should go down a route that would ensure that as many small shareholders and members of the British public as possible would be able to participate?

Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend reminds me of a point that I had overlooked. I am grateful to him for making an important point.
Debates on timetable motions tend to be as formalised as a Petrarchan sonnet. There are complaints from one side and justification from the other. I should like to examine what is happening under the timetable motion. I should declare interests in the oil and gas industry. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) would be present. The hon. Gentleman always rushes into the Chamber to ask whether I have declared my interest. I have always done so. I am not, in fact, declaring an interest. I am declaring two interests.
The purpose of the Bill is to allow a sale of some of BNOC's oil-producing business. This is an excellent idea, for three major reasons. As seen recently in the price of oil, large risks are involved in oil and gas exploration and production. There is no need for the Government to speculate on oil and gas futures. The Government are sufficiently committed and capable to reap the benefit that they require and to which they are entitled from the North Sea by way of taxation. Even taxation can produce amounts less than had been originally expected if the price goes down, as can happen, as well as if it goes up.
There is no reason why the Government should be directly involved as an owner of oil and gas futures, which would be the case if they ran the operation themselves. The risks are best taken by private enterprise. It has already been stated that, overwhelmingly, the achievements in the North Sea have been those of private industry.
A second major reason for the sale of some of BNOC's oil-producing business is to enable the British people directly to participate in oil and gas development to the extent that they wish. Taking up a point that has been made about Amersham, I suspect that when the time comes to sell shares in Britoil, it will be necessary to pitch the sale by way of part tender and part public offer. I suspect that there will need to be more than one way of selling the shares to the British people. It should be remembered that the largest numbers of shares are held by institutions and that these are overwhelmingly insurance companies and pension funds. In saying that the British people will participate in oil and gas development, I mean that they are precisely the people who will benefit and participate. It is those who participate through insurance companies and pension funds.
The third major reason for a sale of some of BNOC's oil-producing business is that a sale of 51 per cent. Of, Britoil will enable the company to proceed to invest private capital as it wishes in oil and gas development. This explains, no doubt, why the chairman of BNOC has welcomed the Bill.
The Bill is needed because it will allow the disposal of certain assets of the British Gas Corporation. There is to be a sale one day of Wytch Farm. I say "one day" because the Secretary of State has exercised his power and right to require the British Gas Corporation to dispose of Wytch Farm, but there seems no alacrity so far on the part of the corporation to do so. There will also be the introduction of competition, thus changing the British Gas Corporation's monopsony position. I am sure that this will also benefit the consumer in the long run.
I come now to the case for a timetable motion. The only weapon of the Opposition is, of course, time. It is right that the Opposition's major weapon should be time. It is also important that the weapon should not be abused. The fact that a timetable motion is needed is similar to a divorce

in marriage. It shows that there has been a breakdown in communication somewhere along the line. It shows that there has been an abuse of the position—

Mr. Cunliffe: As the Opposition Whip dealing with the Bill in Committee, I have had maximum consultation and the fullest co-operation with the Government Whip. We have discussed over a long period ways of accelerating the progress of the Bill. This has been extremely difficult. It is misleading to give the impression that hon. Members have been able to debate in detail all the technicalities of what is the most wide-ranging Bill presented to the House for many years. Some fundamental documents—the articles of association—were missing and are still missing. Hon. Members have tried, by probing, argument and persuasion in Committee, to obtain the articles of association. It was therefore inconceivable that any agreement could be reached on a practical timetable that would allow rational debate on the issues concerned.

Mr. Viggers: The articles of association of Britoil have become the most famous piece of paper since Chamberlain returned from Munich. I do not know how many hon. Members have read articles of association from cover to cover. I suspect that they will not amount to a large number. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy explained in column 171 of Hansard of 19 January effectively what the articles of association would contain. He made the point that the articles of association would protect the position of the company, should there be an attempt to take it over. He went on to give further details of the articles of association and said hat there would be two Government directors of the board of Britoil as long as the size of the Government holding warranted it.
The outline of the articles of association have been made clear, and I do not think that a long debate on the articles, which amount to a technical legal document, can justify a long delay in Committee. I refute that.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Member may have seen the articles of association but the Opposition have not. One of the fundamental questions that has not been answered and which must appeal to the hon. Gentleman is: how can a temporary majority be exercised by somebody who owns 0 per cent. of the shares, which is theoretically possible under the Bill?

Mr. Viggers: The right hon. Gentleman seeks to make a point of substance, but the way in which the articles of association will tackle this problem has been spelt out by my right hon. Friend. The detail of the wording may not be produced. I have not seen the articles of association and do not know the technical reason why they have not been produced. I have no doubt that the detail of the drafting is causing considerable work to lawyers. But it is a technical legal point. The absence of a technical legal document should not cause the Committee a great deal of distress.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: The technical legal problem is precisely why we were seeking information. It is important for the hon. Member to realise that we who are not lawyers are blessed with common sense. One of the reasons why we look at these documents is that we distrust so many of the lawyers who present them.

Mr. Viggers: I respect the hon. Gentleman's view, but I do not think that the absence of one document, which is by nature a technical document, ought to delay discussions on the other issues in Committee.
We heard the "sound and fury" from the Opposition Benches on the subject of safety and how concerned they were about that issue, but they have failed to debate the important issues involved in safety, which I accept as important. I do not believe that the absence of the articles of association ought to postpone or delay that important debate.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I am not a member of the Committee and I have come to the debate to hear the discussion. From all that I have heard and from what my hon. Friend has been saying about the "sound and fury" generated on the Opposition Benches, I assumed that there would be a few more Opposition Members here. Has my hon. Friend noticed that there is only one Opposition Back Bencher here? Is that not an indictment of the synthetic nature of this attack against Government policy?

Mr. Viggers: I can only agree. I should like any descendent of mine to read in Hansard that the House is empty not because I am speaking, but because Opposition Members are not interested in the debate.
The right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon), for whom I have the highest regard—I enjoy telling him that I may not be a doctor from Greenock, but I married one—put forward the proposal that a timetable motion should be introduced at an early stage in Committee. Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple, and I am sure the right hon. Member will realise that when he considers the facts.
Until the timetable motion is taken in Committee it tends to be the Opposition who make the speeches, with the Government staying fairly quiet. Once a timetable motion has been tabled and the Committee knows where it is going and how much time is available, the Trappist Benches of the Government suddenly reel out long urbane speeches with hidden depths not thought of before. Therefore, it is not good enough to say that a timetable motion is needed from the beginning. What is needed is a greater understanding between the usual channels on both sides and an attempt to ration time more sensibly, as I am sure everyone will wish to be the case.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: A voluntary timetable does not necessarily call for a motion to be put forward in Committee. It is agreed between the Whips or between the two Front Benches. I have dealt with many Bills, from both the Opposition and Government Front Benches, on which we have agreed voluntary timetable systems. That is what we are talking about, and that is what we should have done here.

Mr. Viggers: I am not a member of this Committee and I am not sure how it is operating, but I am a member of a Standing Committee. The right hon. Gentleman no longer represents the Labour Party for Greenock and Port Glasgow, but he will understand that one of the complications about the usual channels is that it is not possible for the Government side of the usual channels to know how the minority parties will be voting or attending. One waits to see them turn up in Committee, which requires a compromise, and then we hear their usual

speeches about on the one hand or on the other, which rather complicates the issue, because we do not know how they will make a stand.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Is it not true that on almost every significant Division that we have had since the SDP was formed it has supported the Opposition? Perhaps it can be counted in with the official Opposition and is almost indistinguishable from them.

Mr. Viggers: To demonstrate how the minority parties are lining up on one side or the other, I can tell my hon. Friend that in the Employment Bill Standing Committee we have the support of the Liberal Member. They are remaining all things to all men.
The world has changed in the eight years that I have been privileged to be a Member of the House. Life cannot have been the same after 20 July 1976 and 8 November 1976, when the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), who is now the Leader of the Opposition, introduced, respectively, motions relating to five and four timetables. Before that timetables were matters of "sound and fury". I shall not continue that quotation too far, because I see that
it is a tale told by an idiot".
The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale used to make good speeches, so that would be inappropriate.
Is a timetable motion needed? I do not accept that the Committee should have been delayed by the absence of the articles of association of Britoil. Secondly, the British Gas Corporation is showing no inclination to sell its Wytch Farm interest or to hurry the process of widening the gas supply system. The voters voted for the measures in the Bill and the motion is needed to put this into effect.
My last question is: do we really need to debate timetable motions such as this? It is open to the Government to produce a timetable motion and it is up to the Opposition to debate the motion if there is intense public interest in the issue. On the basis of the Opposition attendance today, that interest is a disgrace.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: If Conservative Members once again go into Opposition they have shown their ability to procrastinate. We may see future guillotine motions in which they will hold the opposite view. The interesting thing about these debates is that whenever there is a change of Government it does not seem to change the speeches. Both Government and Opposition speeches are always the same.
I have held the view since my first faltering days in the House that it would be desirable for all Bills to be timetabled from the beginning. I have gone further than that since then, having heard a number of timetable debates, and having come to the conclusion that they, too, ought to be guillotined at the outset. Taking up the point of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), I should have thought that a vote on guillotine motions woud have been sufficient.
With regard to this timetable motion I enter a few caveats. To begin with, we are considering a timetable motion, as we normally do, when we are only about a third of the way through the Bill, with only about 20 per cent. of the time left for debating it. So if there had been a timetable motion at the start, there would have been a possibility of dividing the time available for debate between its different parts. The problem is how to fix the


time for such a motion. I would think that, depending on the complexity of the Bill, and its length, it could be safely left to the Clerks, on the basis of precedents, to fix a suitable time. I think that all parties would accept that. In one way or another, debates on timetable motions turn out to be parliamentary scandals. They are a complete waste of time.
The question is whether the Bill should be guillotined at this stage. I take the view that, because of the unbalanced nature of debate that it would cause, it would be wrong, though if an overall timetable had been laid down in advance, with the right of sub-division of the time available, I should have voted for it.
I oppose a guillotine in this instance because I do not believe that the Government can get round the absence of the articles of association. They may argue that they have set out the main terms of ownership in speeches, but Oppositions are entitled to see the text that is likely to be subject to eventual construction or adoption. It should be stressed that we did not demand the final glistening text, which is to be produced by the team of lawyers who are alleged to be crawling over it. We would have been prepared to accept a broad draft, especially as it affected the main clauses of the Bill. There is no doubt that the absence of the articles of association caused a protraction of the Committee's debates on clauses 1, 2 and 3.
Then we have to consider the nature of the Bill. Whereas the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 dealt with the oil industry, this measure deals with two industries—the oil industry and the gas industry.
In a way, the privatisation of the British National Oil Corporation is relatively simple, though highly controversial. But for the British Gas Corporation we have a proposal for privatisation that has side effects on the supply of gas. The breaking of the monopoly of the BGC is again a complex and controversial aspect. The use of pipelines is a matter that should be discussed in detail, bearing in mind that members of the Committee have received representations from the National Farmers Union about it. It is worried that a proposal of this kind could lead to a duplication or replication of pipelines. There are interests other than those of oil and gas consumers who are concerned about that.
Petroleum production licences form a relatively minor part of the Bill, but offshore activities and safety matters are subjects on which we could have spent a considerable and useful amount of time.
If the Government's proposal were only to limit the Committee stage of the Bill, that would have conditioned my attitude to the guillotine motion. I should have wanted to make sure that we had a great deal of time available to discuss the important aspects of safety, in view especially of the serious accidents that have occurred during the past two years. We want to make sure that the incidence of accidents is lessened by having the opportunity to discuss the safety considerations more fully. I am sure that Government supporters share my worry about what might happen if we did not make sure that our safety regulations were adequate to deal with the problem, especally in the very exceptional weather conditions that can be encountered.
I do not wish to say a great deal more, because I have said that my opposition to the motion is based on the fact that the time available for discussion will be unbalanced and that we have a great many more important matters to discuss.
In my view, at least one representative of the smaller parties should be included on the Business Committee, so that there is a degree of consultation at that level about what is discussed in the Bill. There are precedents for that. The Standing Committee has two minority party representatives on it. In my view, at least one of those should be included on the Business Committee.
I do not intend to rehearse that controversial nature of the Bill or to go through its text. We have done that in Committee and we hope that on Report and during what remains to us of the Committee stage we shall do so again. However, the Bill—the earlier part of it especially—represents a very important measure to hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies. It puts at risk a great many jobs in Scotland. As a Scottish Member, I should have felt that I had not done my duty in the Standing Committee if we had not tested the Government's intentions about the protection of the jobs at present made available through BNOC.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: It is a matter of great sadness to me that I am not a member of the Standing Committee that is considering the Bill. I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the present Secretary of State for Transport, who, at the Department of Energy, played a leading role in producing the Bill. It would have been a great pleasure for me to play a role in steering the Bill through its Committee stage.
We have heard that the Committee has had 70 hours of debate and 17 sittings and is still only a short way through the Bill, having considered only the provisions that deal with the British National Oil Corporation. That being so, the discussion has been extensive, to put it mildly, and I feel that perhaps there is a degree of hypocrisy on the part of Opposition Members when they talk about the measure not being properly discussed. By all accounts it is good-natured hypocrisy, but it is hypocrisy all the same.
I support the motion. It is vital that the Government get the Bill through the House. It is probably one of the most important Bills that will be passed in this Parliament. The Government were elected on a manifesto that spoke of "rolling back" the State, and the Bill is one of the most significant pieces of denationalisation to be carried out by the Government and it is one of which we shall be very proud in the future.
When we come to consider the British National Oil Corporation, we have to remind ourselves that the development of the North Sea and its oil resources was a triumph of private industry. In practice, the early work done on it owed almost nothing to the then Government other than that the Secretary of State at the time farmed out certain blocks and told people that they could explore them. From there, all that the British National Oil Corporation did was climb on the backs of the private oil companies, leech them and build up its influence purely on the success of the private oil industry.

Mr. Cunliffe: Will the hon. Gentleman be congratulating and paying tribute to the private developers in the North Sea and at the same time commending the British Gas Corporation for its skill, enterprise, initiative and ingenuity? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a poor reward for the BGC's success to hive off all the hard and dedicated work that it has put in and to sell off an asset that it produced through its own initiative, backing and flair for that kind of work?

Mr. Hamilton: We are discussing two separate organizations—BNOC, which commands a very small amount of North Sea oil reserves, and the British Gas Corporation, which is a monopoly, which has monopoly rights to sell to everyone in the country, and which has also managed to organise matters so that it has complete monopoly rights over all the gas that it buys. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) cannot compare the one organisation with the other. We have to ensure that both of them end up in the private sector, where they are subjected to competition, which is the only way in which we can guarantee that the British taxpayer will not at some stage be asked to fork out because, for some mysterious reason, or because of political interference, they start making losses. I am delighted that the corporation will be returned to the private sector and that we shall have another independent company operating in the North Sea.

Mr. Myles: My hon. Friend spoke of the possibility of the corporation becoming unprofitable. We hear a great deal from the Opposition about the Government selling off profitable companies to private industry. I have put the question to Opposition Members in Committee, but so far no one has answered it. What was the criterion for nationalising an industry? Was it to provide a service to the public which was not being done profitably in private hands, or was it to get a profit, which the Opposition seemed to think that it was?

Mr. Hamilton: My knowledge of Socialist politics and history is relatively limited, but the initial idea always seems to be that somehow it is possible to give this great service to the public and make a profit at the same time. Of course, the chances to make a profit were soon thrown away, and the taxpayer, basically, had to carry the burden. Then the service to the public bit the dust, as the monopoly unions which invariably control these industries started taking their grip of the situation. In the end, the taxpayer was having to find vast sums of money to bail out monopoly unions, which had none of the controls of the market place and thus no incentives to become more efficient. The taxpayer was always there to pay the bill. There is no better example of that today than the mining industry, which has great powers. The taxpayer invariably ends up paying for the inefficiencies of that industry, and about £1,000 million a year seems to be more than enough.
It will be possible for the British National Oil Corporation to expand in a way that was not possible in the past, once it is back in the private sector. There were people in the corporation who initially may have thought that a cosy relationship could be had by being under Government control. That all changed dramatically at the time of the development of the Clyde oilfield, which BNOC wanted to bring on stream as a natural extension of its trading activities. The corporation had to go to the Treasury, which said "We are sorry, your commercial and trading interests take second place to the Government's cash flow and the public sector borrowing requirement. So you cannot have the money that you need to develop the oilfield. The money will come on stream two years later than you have asked for it."
It was at that moment in the life of BNOC that it realised that it did not make any difference whether it was making money or whether it was not making money—ultimately, the Treasury was there controlling every investment that it made. How could a major

international oil company—which I sincerely hope that BNOC will become and is now on the way to becoming—have to go back to the Government all the time and ask whether it could invest in new fields and build new rigs? It is encouraging that BNOC is making incursions into overseas markets and other areas, but it does so in the confidence that it will be in a position to go to the private sector for finance. If it has to come hobbling back to the Treasury, with all the ups and downs of public sector spending, and so on, its growth will be inhibited, as will its chances of employment, about which the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) expressed such concern.

Viscount Cranborne: While my hon. Friend is on that subject, would he care to speculate about whether it would be any easier for BNOC to explore for oil in foreign countries if it were an independent company rather than a creature of the British Government?

Mr. Hamilton: There is definite evidence that it would be much easier for BNOC to operate in those circumstances. Also, of course, it would be much easier to co-operate and become part of consortia, with other oil companies. I gather that BNOC is now doing that.
I have no great faith in politicians. I say that in a nonpartisan way. I do not believe in the capacity of politicians of any colour to run industries. I have yet to meet any political party which does not believe that it is in the national interest to win the next election. In profitable industries under public control there is a great tendency or temptation to invest in certain areas—where there are marginal seats, for instance—which may have no commercial benefit but which may swing a marginal seat. I could see future Governments seriously considering whether BNOC should invest in refineries, ignoring the enormous over-capacity of refineries in this country. That would be unlikely to worry politicians. I could even see them starting to sell petrol in filling stations if it were thought that that would fulfil some short-term political ambition. It is, therefore, a healthy trend to remove the companies from the influence of Government interference.
Then there is the past record of BNOC. It was used by the Labour Government as a tool to interfere and play a tiresome role in the North Sea with other companies on the operating committees, and so on. that was bitterly resented at the time. That will not happen again if we privatise the company, and it is something for which we should all be grateful.
There was a great cry about us losing control of oil from the United Kingdom continental shelf. That is nonsense, because for our landing rights—all our North Sea oil has to be landed in the United Kingdom—the 51 per cent. participation options exercised by BNOC will come under Government control. That gives us control of about 1·3 million barrels per day. On top of that, there has always been reserve emergency legislation to enable the Government to take complete control of all oil produced anywhere around these shores in the event of war or anything of that nature. So it is nonsense to pretend that the Government are losing control of North Sea oil reserves. There is nothing whatsoever to support that contention.
We have a good precedent to go on, in that the Labour Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) reminded us, sold shares in British Petroleum. That Government had good reasons for doing


so at the time. The International Monetary Fund was on their backs, and the Government had to raise money because the country was in severe debt. Indeed, I hope that the remaining 49 per cent. of BNOC may come under he same pressure at a later stage. It is rather nice that Governments of the future will have cushions of shares in oil companies which they can sell in times of stress. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was Secretary of State for Energy at the time when the BP shares were sold. It is interesting to see how Opposition has changed a man who was capable of moderate deeds such as that but who is capable of such thoroughly immoderate words and actions today.
Then there are the oil interests of the British Gas Corporation. In my view, it was a great tragedy that the chairman of the British Gas Corporation was given the opportunity to create a separate subsidiary of those oil interests which the British Gas Corporation employees could have continued to manage, thus keeping control. It would have been possible to float a separate oil company worth about £500 million, including, of course, the Wytch Farm interests and other BGC interests. It would have preserved employment in the BGC, which did not seem to matter very much to the chairman of the BGC, and it would have created a new independent British oil company.
I am sure that all hon. Members would see that as a good objective because, by comparison with the United States, we in this country still have few oil companies. It would have given us another oil company, opened up the market place and introduced a healthy element of competition. However, for some reason, the BGC considered that that was not desirable or possible. The chance was missed. The oil interests of the BGC will probably now be sold off piecemeal, and the great opportunity to give the managers and employees of the BGC a continuing role in the oil industry and create a new, separate oil company has been missed. It only goes to show the shortsighted attitude of the BGC, which is most regrettable.
We shall see the breaking of the gas monopsony, a matter of great importance. At present, the BGC has the sole buying rights of all gas supplies from the North Sea. It has many effects on production, not the least of which is that people have been discouraged from producing further reserves of gas. Indeed, by now we should probably have had a private gas-gathering line which would have been financed by international oil companies. I am sure that that would have happened if the BGC had paid a slightly higher price for its gas. As a result of its monopsony powers the production of gas has been depressed and many international oil companies have chosen to leave their gas reserves in the ground because of the poor price paid by the BGC after extraction.
The most exciting aspect of the legislation is the breaking of BGC's monopoly on selling gas to the public. We must all look forward to that because, if one of our major energy enterprises is denationalised, that will represent a great breakthrough. The Opposition accuse the Government of creaming off the profits or of guaranteeing that prices will increase. However, they cannot have it both ways. Either enormous profits will be creamed off by private industry, or competition will lead to a reduction in prices. We should all welcome that and, in addition, British industry would benefit.

6 pm

Mr. W. E. Garrett: The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) implied that he would have liked to have been a member of the Committee. However, having listened to his dull and boring speech, I am glad that he was not a member. He does not match up to the humour and knowledge of other Conservative Members and should have made his points in a less dogmatic and more humanitarian manner.
The Leader of the House did not show much enthusiasm for the motion and his approach was low key. I think that he felt that justice was not being done. In the three or four minutes allocated to me, I hope to show that the guillotine motion has been introduced too early. The Bill has 36 clauses. The first nine clauses on the oil industry and related forms of energy have been dealt with. Indeed, I concede that far too much time was spent on those clauses. At one time, Committee members felt that they were members of the Scottish Grand Committee because those representing Scottish constituencies made such long interventions.
However, two-thirds of the Bill remains to be discussed and those provisions relate to the gas industry. There is tremendous meat in the remaining clauses. The Secretary of State should consult his colleagues about precedents. En terms of political philosophy a parallel can be drawn with the Labour Government's decision to nationalise British Shipbuilders and British Aerospace. The two companies were covered by one Bill. On that occasion, the guillotine was not imposed until the Committee had sat for many more than 17 sittings. Indeed, I believe that it took 56 sittings to complete discussion of the Bill. Almost to the end, we were allowed to debate fully the most controversial matters. In Opposition, Conservative Members used their time wisely and fought as they thought right, according to their political principles.
There are still 24 or 25 clauses of this Bill to be debated. Much more time could have been allocated to some of the very serious issues. As the Minister knows, some of the remaining clauses are more technical than political. It might have been better for us all if we had been able to debate the political content of some of the remaining clauses. It may well be that some of my hon. Friends' tactics were unwise and that we made an error of judgment in concentrating too much on the energy and oil provisions. However, that is in the past. Given that we have discussed 10 clauses in three weeks, we should have been allowed at least another three weeks—or another 12 sittings—before the imposition of a guillotine.
We must think ahead. The threat of a guillotine hangs over two other Committees. It would be bad to curtail political debate too much. The Secretary of State is a man of strong political feelings. Before he became a member of the Cabinet, he expressed them fairly, honestly, vigorously and determinedly. Other hon. Members would also like the opportunity to express their views similarly. It is not always possible to put across views on the Floor of the House. Some hon. Members are not very good at debating on the Floor of the House, but are brilliant in Committee. It is a shame to deny their expertise and knowledge by imposing a guillotine. Ultimately, we must try—across the political spectrum—to reach a fair solution to political problems.
The guillotine motion is a very unsatisfactory device and I deplore it. Sooner or later—perhaps not in my


time—the House must find an alternative. If we do not do so, we shall continue to deny the principles of democracy to which we are all pledged. The Leader of the House should be made fully aware that, despite the lack of fury and vigour in the debate, there is a feeling that the system is unsatisfactory. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman would do both himself and the Government credit if he were to initiate a procedure—through the usual channels—to eliminate the present method of cutting democratic discussion. I know that that is difficult and has been tried before, but I appeal to the Minister to convey my feelings to the Leader of the House at the end of the debate.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I certainly sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett). I also sympathise with the hon. Members for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) and Banff (Mr. Myles)—who are both new to the House—who questioned the way in which we deal with Bills. The Committee was good natured and, at times, amusing. We learnt a great deal. Today, no one is listening and nobody cares, and sometimes we clap ourselves to death. Standing Committees are useless for discussing industries, whether publicly or privately owned. The public do not listen to our debates, although they are reported in Hansard. Many of my constituents are miners and steel workers and when I tell them that I have been up all night they say "You must be daft." We are daft, but we will not do anything about it.
The hon. Member for Banff asked a perfectly proper question about the reasons for public ownership. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) asked a question, had a knock at the coal industry and cleared off. That is about it. Before the war, Imperial Airways was a publicly owned body. It was publicly owned—as I knew from my six years' service with the Royal Air Force—for a very good reason. There was a strategic link with the Gulf. Gas and electricity were nationalised for great technical rather than political reasons. The coal industry was a dead loss. Anyone who believes that it was a thriving industry should ask those who worked in it. The Germans nationalised their railways 100 years before us and Gladstone had a shot at nationalisation at least 140 years ago. The Conservative Party took Rolls-Royce into public ownership. It has not been nationalised and I do not know how it is run. It is never discussed in the House. No one should expect me to say that British Leyland is a great success and to genuflect towards it simply because it is 100 per cent. publicly owned.
There needs to be discussion about the public sector borrowing requirement, and so on. Now that the Government are following a policy of privatisation, we need to ask ourselves what is to happen if Britoil remains 49 per cent. publicly owned. It is useful to have 49 per cent. of the profits coming into the Treasury. There are various definitions of PSBR. I could put forward an argument for 51 per cent. public ownership. There will not be any real discussion as to how the firm will be run. We have argued that the pension funds should be used in industry. There will be a great deal of argument about that in the years to come, because that is where the capital comes from. It does not come from the little chaps who

are running around buying shares. There are 50,000 or 60,000 small shareholders in the country. If I hold shares, I suppose that I do so through insurance funds.
The idea of a voluntary timetable is a very good one. I remember what happened the last time we had minority Government. If the press is right—usually it is wrong—swe might well be moving into a period of minority Government. In those circumstances, it is perfectly respectable to argue about the use of time, but it is not respectable in relation to a Bill of this nature.
We cannot ignore the policy of privatisation, which is part of the general policy of the Government. The Government have had approval of the Bill on Second Reading and they have every right to protect the legislative programme. Right from the beginning, the assumption was that at a certain time we would move to a guillotine. That is what we have all said when we have had a cup of tea outside the Committee Room.
The Minister of State answered questions very fully. If I had answered questions at that length when I was a junior Minister, senior Ministers would have told me to shut up. They would have said "It is not your job to open up every aspect of every question." I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he answered questions. Only once did he get involved in trumpeting about what he thought the Opposition really believed in, and that took only about two minutes. He joined my hon. Friends in debating Scottish matters, such as the smelter at Invergordon. That was perfectly proper, because they were important issues. Never once did the Government try to curtail discussion. Never once did they move the closure. If I had been leading in the Committee I would have moved the closure—and moved it quickly. When the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) moved the closure, the Government voted against it. The best thing that could have happened would have been to have a closure.
The nature of the Bill was revealed on Second Reading, when I suggested that there would be a long Committee stage. I asked for information on BNOC and British Gas. I believe that last Wednesday several hon. Members had a useful briefing from British Gas, and that BNOC also provided information. The Minister of State promised that he would give us a bundle of information about safety factors in the North Sea, but we have not had it. [Interruption.] Apparently, it is on its way, now that we have the guillotine. It was not available previously. We require a great deal of information on safety. I talked about a safety charter. It is a very important question, especially in view of the nasty Canadian accident. We have to find a means of giving the question a great deal of time.
We have emphasised the lack of satisfactory parliamentary procedure. Where there is accountability, it is done by negative resolution. I have argued that point in Committee, so I shall not go through it again.
We were given no information about the sale of the oil interests of British Gas. We were told that the Government do not yet have the information. If the British Gas Corporation or BNOC act in such a way that the Secretary of State does not have to intervene, there will be no further procedure in any shape or form. [Interruption.] It is suggested that the articles of association do not matter, but when industries are taken into public ownership there are provisions in the relevant Bills for the way in which the industries are to be organised.
With regard to the splitting up of BNOC, we were informed that there was near unanimity in the advice to


keep an integrated firm. We were told that the merchant banks advised it. We were told about the crucial need for the effectiveness of the trading arm. We have not had any real explanation of these matters. We were told that the Government had changed their mind on the membership of the trading arm during the passage of the Bill.
We made a meal of the articles of association, and well we might have, because they should have been supplied earlier. We have got them now that we have finished the discussion of the part of the Bill dealing with oil. We have one and a half days for discussion on the Floor of the House.
How is the firm to be controlled? I have not the faintest idea of the role of the Government directors. I have not the faintest idea what the two chaps do on BP. If they are there with their fiduciary responsibility, what are they supposed to do? They are appointed by the Government. There were special aspects of the De Lorean venture, in which I am interested, in view of my past knowledge of Belfast. There are things that I would have done in a different way, but it has to be remembered that at one end of Belfast there were people who had never worked in their lives.
The Secretary of State says that he wants to keep Britoil British. We have not heard very much about how that is to be done. His words on Second Reading could mean one thing or another, but apparently the problem relates to the law and to the EEC.
The Secretary of State has said that he is not sorry about the way in which he sold Amersham International. Incidentally, I think that it is a good idea to let the people employed in the firm have shares. In the case of British Aerospace, there was a speculative gain of 10 per cent. , with Cable and Wireless there was a gain of 20 per cent. With Amersham it was a 30 per cent. gain. With Britoil, a 10 per cent. error could be worth £150 million. Therefore, it is perfectly proper for this House to discuss the method of selling.
If the Government want to have privatisation, it is not something to be discussed simply on the back pages of the Financial Times. It is not sufficient to give vague supplementary figures. What on earth is the use of that sort of information? As I said in Committee, there are people on my side of the divide in politics who say "We can nationalise with a one-clause Bill. We do not need parliamentary procedure."
We have no information as to the date of sale. I suppose that the Secretary of State has to box clever on that, but if the Government are to proceed with privatisation the Bank of England—which is the national bank, in a curious sense of the term—should have a small merchant bank attached to it. It would be very much better if such a bank were to handle the matter. I am not particularly interested in arguing about who gets money from whom. We know that the City puts a lot of money into the Conservative Party. We know that centrally the Labour Party gets money from the trade unions. But it would be better for the body politic if the people who pay money into the Conservative Party were not involved in this Bill. The Conservative Party would be the first to jump in if the trade unions were involved. The matter is picked up by people outside the House who build it up into something that it is not. We should also examine that matter.
I would have been quite happy, as would my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas), who has played a leading part in running the Bill, to discuss from the beginning how we would sort it out. I believed

that it needed a Select Committee procedure. The guillotine motion or the discussion today should not be just another party game. The Government are selling off a successful oil company which in its integrated form can, as the Canadian company, talk to foreign Governments. I accept fully that the major role in North Sea oil extraction has been played by foreign oil companies which have brought their expertise to Britain. They have trained people in Scotland. In the few times that I have been to Aberdeen, I have seen that those companies play a major part. However, the Government are funding the training at BNOC in a different way from that envisaged in the original Bill.
The gas corporation has been a successful monopoly. It is an integrated company which is the envy of the world. The chairman of another nationalised industry—I use the word "nationalised" advisedly—said that the Government have a vendetta against nationalised industry. If I have said that before it is because the matter is on my mind. I lunched recently with a French banker and a German banker who have come to live in Britain. They are astonished that the national sport is knocking the public sector. I understand that when trains are late people say "It is a nationalised industry". However, unless we put our minds to the running of the nationalised industries, the way that capital is injected into them and the management training, they will not add to anyone's comfort.
The large private monopolies are similar internally to the nationalised undertakings. As I said in the debate a few months ago, I do not genuflect as I pass Hobart House or the headquarters of the CEGB, and I do not regard those companies as "Socialism" in the modern sense of the word. They are State monopolies which we should examine and question in exactly the same way as private monopolies.

Mr. Garel-Jones: What about your reselection?

Mr. Rees: I have been reselected with no other nominations. I have said these things up hill and down dale. The people who work in those industries know that I am talking sense and vote accordingly.
We have spent three hours on the guillotine motion. We could have done it in a different way. There is much expertise on the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline has great knowledge of the oil industry and adds stature to the Committee. I am against the motion because what the Government seek could have been achieved in another way, but I shall not join in the ritual game of saying that guillotine motions are always wrong. They are sometimes right. We could have had a sensible discussion on the matters. However, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion, for what good it will do them.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has addressed the House in the thoughtful and moderate tones to which we have become accustomed in Committee. It was a welcome contrast to the synthetic indignation to which we were treated at the beginning of the debate by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). One point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South corrected a totally false impression given by the right hon. Member for Deptford when he accused the


Government Front Bench—my hon. Friend the Minister of State has carried most of the heavy burden in Committee—of taking up too much time. That is nonsense. Time was taken because careful answers were being given to genuine points put by the Opposition Front Bench and Opposition Back Benchers. Not to do that would make a farce of the Committee stage. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw any charge—

Mr. John Silkin: If the Secretary of State reads Hansard to morrow he will find that that is exactly what I said.

Mr. Lawson: I am aware of the charge that the right hon. Gentleman made, but it has been answered by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South also referred, perhaps in a musing or philosophical way, to the difficulty that the House always has when debating commercial and financial matters. There is a difficulty. Even if industries remain wholly State owned, we cannot run them in Parliament. It would be absurd to try to do so, yet we have genuine concerns about the way in which they are run and their effect upon the national economy. One reason behind our preference to have as many industries in the private sector as possible, and exposed to competition wherever possible, is the acute difficulty, even with the best will in the world, of achieving some sort of political framework for the essential commercial, industrial and financial decisions.
That the Bill is of the first importance has been agreed by hon. Members on both sides of the House on many occasions, not least today. The Opposition have made it clear that they intend to oppose the Bill by every means within their power. One may recall what was said by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) when he spoke from the Dispatch Box for the official Opposition on the one occasion that I can remember during this parliamentary Session.
He said:
The Government's proposals … will be bitterly resisted by the Labour Party and the trade union movement, both inside and outside Parliament." — [Official Report, 10 November 1981; Vol. 12, c. 494.]
The means available include delay, which, given its head, could prevent the Bill from coming on to the statute book. No Government could possibly accept that.
The right hon. Member for Deptford said that we were incompetent because we did not have the Second Reading until 19 January. The equivalent measure, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said—the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975—did not have its Second Reading until 30 April. That was guillotined. The right hon. Gentleman said that we had introduced the guillotine on this Bill when the progress made was far too rapid to justify a guillotine. I have considered what we are doing. In 70 hours of discussion we have discussed only 11 of the 36 clauses, which is about 30 per cent. For the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines measure a guillotine was introduced after only 60 hours of debate during which 19 clauses had been completed—40 per cent. of the Bill—which was much greater progress. By the yardstick of what the right hon. Gentleman did when in office and the guillotine on the 1975 Bill, we have allowed much more time and waited longer before deciding that it was inevitable, sadly, that a guillotine should be introduced.
The guillotine motion on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill was proposed not by the then Leader of the House but by the Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. He said that
the case for timetable motions on the part of whatever Government happen to be in power is that, where a major Bill in the main programme is likely to be lost through undue delay … for whatever reason, the Government are bound to turn their mind to means by which the Bill can be brought back to the Floor of the House to have its Report and Third Reading." — [Official Report, 7 July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 112–13.]
That is the argument that always applies. It was a fair argument then, as it is now. It is sheer hypocrisy to chop and change and to say that we cannot possibly have a guillotine because it is a defiance of all that this Parliament stands for.
Opposition Members have sought to inject a new element into the debate. Among those who have done so is the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) who made great play of the fact that, somehow or other, debate is rendered impossible because Britoil's articles of association will not be available to the Committee until later this week. That does not begin to stand up to a moment's examination. Most of the issues in the amendments tabled by the Opposition have nothing to do with the contents of the articles of association. The amendments deal with the way in which the scheme-making powers will be used, the valuation of Britoil and BNOC assets, the way in which parliamentary accountability can be satisfied, BNOC's capital structure after privatisation, and wider matters such as the implications for employment in Scotland and the merits of participation agreements.
Those and other matters have been the subjects of Opposition amendments. I make no complaint, but Britoil's articles of association have no bearing whatever on such matters. I explained clearly on Second Reading the provisions on control, so that objection does not stand up to examination.
A number of Opposition Members have suggested that it would be better to have a voluntary timetable from the beginning or from an early stage. I hope that hon. Members who are in favour of timetable motions will behave logically and support the timetable motion in the Lobby.
In view of one or two exchanges earlier on the question of a voluntary timetable, I remind hon. Members of the Committee's all-night sitting on 23 February. We began at 4.30 in the afternoon and did not finish until 7.20 the following morning. It was a long and arduous all-night sitting. We tried to make progress but we made very little and got through only two-and-a half clauses. During the night the right hon. Member for Leeds, South came to me in the Corridor and said "Is this not a lot of nonsense? Can we not do without an all-night sitting?" I said "We can do without an all-night sitting provided that you can give me a date for the ending of the Committee stage." He said that he could not do that. That was fair. I made him the offer, and the opportunity for a voluntary timetable was there.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: But then I said "Is this not a daft way of discussing the Bill? Can we not finish at 2 am or 3 am?" I could not, in the middle of the night, give the right hon. Gentleman a finishing date. If he had made a suggestion I could have contacted my hon. Friends and discussed it the following day. We were not discussing a


voluntary timetable. I was asking whether it was possible to finish at 2 am or 3 am instead of sitting all night. We could have done that with the same results.

Mr. Lawson: The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman did not respond to the offer. I know that it was difficult for him because of his difficulty in controlling his hon. Friends. That was evident in the Committee. I understand why he did not respond, but the offer was made.
The Committee has been good humoured. Hon. Members on both sides have testified to that. It is wholly satisfactory and I am happy that that is how it has been, but all good things must come to an end—even Standing Committee E. The Bill must be put on the statute book. In the motion we offer a fair and reasonable timetable. It allows reasonable time not just for a continuation of the discussion on the gas provisions, but for discussion on the important safety provisions for operations in the North Sea. It is important that they should be discussed, and the timetable arrangement will enable that.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) knows how I hate to omit to mention him, because he plays such a large part in our counsels upstairs. He suggest that the Bill is not needed at present because falling oil prices mean that we shall no longer want to go ahead with the privatisation of Britoil. I disagree. It is essential to be able to sell the shares in Britoil whenever the market conditions are right. We must achieve fair value for the taxpayer. There is no case for delay, nor is there a case for going slow on the breaking up of the monopoly and monopoly of the British Gas Corporation, because they are contrary to the interest of the British economy, British industry and the British people.
We are talking about value to the taxpayer. Some of my hon. Friends mentioned the sale of a large shareholding in British Petroleum by the last Government. The value of that company moved up substantially from what the Government received. In 1977, when that happened, the difference was £50 million—or £90 million at today's prices. Silence on that matter by Opposition Members might be sensible.
I am sure that Opposition Members do not wish to delay the implementation of the vital safety provisions. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has given details of the slow progress in Standing Committee E, in spite of the good spirit and good humoured nature of our debates and some of the good points made by Opposition Members. We had high hopes of making satisfactory progress without a guillotine, but our hopes were disappointed, as anybody who attended the Committee will appreciate.
Anybody who heard the engaging speech today by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), a member of the Committee, will understand even more vividly why we need a guillotine if we are to conclude proceedings on the Bill.
I do not complain for a moment that the Opposition are not doing their job properly. They are in favour of monopoly and the State ownership of industry. They believe it right to put their views forward. They believe that they should oppose private enterprise, private initiative and competition. However, there must be a limit in time to the expression of their opposition. They have made it clear that they would prefer the Bill to be lost. We should have liked to complete the Committee stage by now, but we accept that we cannot have everything our own way. We must strike a balance between the two

views. We have already debated the Bill in Committee for the best part of 70 hours. The further time allocated in the motion brings the time to about 110 hours. That is a reasonable compromise by any standards. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the motion.
We have heard a great deal of synthetic indignation from the Shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Deptford. He was conspicuously deserted by his Back Benchers. Indeed, the Opposition Benches have been pretty well empty throughout the debate. That tells its own story far more clearly than any words of mine, or of anybody else. I commend the motion to the House. I hope and believe that from now on we shall be able to scrutinise the Bill's remaining provisions properly arid fully, as we were elected to do.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 226.

Division No. 84]
[6.40 pm


AYES


Adley,Robert
Dickens,Geoffrey


Aitken,Jonathan
Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.


Alexander, Richard
Dover,Denshore


Alison, RtHon Michael
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Amery, RtHon Julian
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)


Aspinwall,Jack
Durant,Tony


Atkins,Robert(PrestonN)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Banks, Robert
Eggar, Tim


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Elliott,SirWilliam


Bendall,Vivian
Eyre,Reginald


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Fairbairn,Nicholas


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Fairgrieve, SirRussell


Benyon.W. (Buckingham)
Faith, MrsSheila


Berry, HonAnthony
Farr,John


Best, Keith
Fell,SirAnthony


Biffen, RtHon John
Finsberg,Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Fisher,SirNigel


Blackburn,John
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)


Body, Richard
Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bottomley, Peter(W'wichW)
Forman,Nigel


Boyson,DrRhodes
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Braine,SirBernard
Fox, Marcus


Bright,Graham
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Brinton,Tim
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Brittan,Rt. Hon. Leon
Fry, Peter


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gardiner,George(Reigate)


Brotherton,Michael
Gardner, Edward (SFylde)


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Garel-Jones,Tristan


Bruoe-Gardyne, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bryan, Sir Paul
Goodhart,SirPhilip


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Goodhew,SirVictor


Buck,Antony
Goodlad,Alastair


Budgen,Nick
Gow, Ian


Bulmer,Esmond
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Burden,SirFrederick
Gray, Hamish


Butcher,John
Greenway, Harry


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'thN)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grylls,Michael


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Qummer,JohnSelwyn


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hamilton, HonA.


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hamilton,Michael(Salisbury)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clarke,Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Hannam,John


Clegg, SirWalter
Haselhurst,Alan


Cockeram,Eric
Hastings,Stephen


Cope,John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Hawkins,Paul


Corrie,John
Hawksley,Warren


Costain,SirAlbert
Hayhoe, Barney


Cranborne,Viscount
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Critchley,Julian
Heddle,John


Crouch,David
Henderson, Barry


Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)
Heseltine, RtHon Michael






Higgins, RtHon Terence L.
Parkinson, RtHon Cecil


Hill,James
Parris, Matthew


Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Patten,Christopher(Bath)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Patten,John (Oxford)


Hooson, Tom
Pattie,Geoffrey


Hordern,Peter
Pawsey, James


Howell, RtHonD.(G'ldf'd)
Percival,Sir Ian


Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pollock,Alexander


Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)
Porter,Barry


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Proctor, K. Harvey


JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raison,Rt Hon Timothy


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Kaberry,SirDonald
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Kellett-Bowman,MrsElaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Kimball,SirMarcus
Renton,Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
RhodesJames, Robert


Kitson,SirTimothy
RhysWilliams,SirBrandon


Knight,MrsJill
Ridley,HonNicholas


Knox, David
Ridsdale,SirJulian


Lamont,Norman
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lang, Ian
Rippon,Rt Hon Geoffrey


Langford-Holt,SirJohn
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Latham,Michael
Rossi,Hugh


Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Royle, SirAnthony


Lee, John
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


LeMarchant,Spencer
Scott,Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd,Richard


Loveridge,John
Shersby,Michael


Luce,Richard
Silvester,Fred


Lyell, Nicholas
Sims, Roger


Macfarlane,Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


MacGregor,John
Speed, Keith


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson.M(N'bury)
Spence,John


McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)
Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)


McQuarrie,Albert
Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)


Madel, David
Sproat,Iain


Major,John
Squire,Robin


Marland,Paul
Stainton,Keith


Marlow,Antony
Stanbrook,Ivor


Marshall,Michael(Arundel)
Stanley,John


Mates,Michael
Steen,Anthony


Mawby, Ray
Stevens,Martin


Mawhinney,DrBrian
Stewart,A.(ERenfrewshire)


Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mayhew,Patrick
Stokes,John


Mellor,David
Tapsell, Peter


Meyer, SirAnthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Miller,Hal(B'grove)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mills,Iain(Meriden)
Temple-Morris,Peter


Miscampbell,Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mitchell,David (Basingstoke)
Thompson,Donald


Moate, Roger
Thorne,Neil(IlfordSouth)


Montgomery, Fergus
Thornton,Malcolm


Moore,John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morgan,Geraint
Townsend, CyrilD, (B'heath)


Morrison, HonC. (Devizes)
Trippier,David


Morrison, Hon P, (Chester)
Trotter, Neville


Mudd, David
van Straubenzee, SirW.


Murphy,Christopher
Vaughan, DrGerard


Myies, David
Viggers, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Waddington,David


Needham,Richard
Waldegrave,HonWilliam


Nelson,Anthony
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Neubert,Michael
Walker, B. (Perth)


Newton, Tony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Normanton, Tom
Wall,SirPatrick


Onslow,Cranley
Waller, Gary


Osborn,John
Walters, Dennis


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Ward,John


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Warren,Kenneth





Watson,John
Young, SirGeorge (Acton)


Wells,John (Maidstone)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wheeler,John



Whitney,Raymond
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wickenden, Keith
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Wiggin,Jerry
Mr. Carol Mather.


Wolfson,Mark





NOES


Allaun,Frank
Foster, Derek


Alton,David
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Anderson,Donald
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Freud,Clement


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Garrett, John (NorwichS)


Ashton,Joe
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Atkinson,N.(H'gey,)
George, Bruce


Bagier,Gordon A.T.
Golding,John


Barnett,Guy(Greenwich)
Graham, Ted


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Grant,George(Morpeth)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hamilton,James(Bothwell)


Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Bidwell,Sydney
Hardy, Peter


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Boothroyd, MissBetty
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bottomley,RtHonA(M'b'ro)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bradley,Tom
Haynes, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heffer,Eric S.


Brocklebank-Fowler.C.
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Holland,S.(L'b'th,Vauxh'll)


Brown, Ron (E 'burgh, Leith)
HomeRobertson, John


Callaghan, RtHonJ.
Homewood,William


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Horam,John


Campbell,Ian
Howell, RtHon D.


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Hoyle, Douglas


Carmichael,Neil
Huckfield,Les


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Hughes, Hoy (Newport)


Cohen,Stanley
Janner, HonGreville


Coleman,Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Conlan, Bernard
John,Brynmor


Cook, Robin F.
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cowans, Harry
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Johnston, Russell(Inverness)


Crowther,Stan
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cryer,Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Kerr, Russell


Dalyell,Tam
Kilroy-Silk,Robert


Davidson,Arthur
Lamborn, Harry


Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)
Lamond,James


Davis, Terry (8 'ham, Stechf'd)
Leadbitter,Ted


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Leighton,Ronald


Dixon,Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan


Dobson,Frank
Lewis, Arthur (N'hamNW)


Dormand,Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Douglas,Dick
Litherland,Robert


Douglas-Mann,Bruce
Lofthouse,Geoffrey


Dubs,Alfred
Lyon, Alexander(York)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)


Dunlop,John
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Dunn, James A.
McCartney,Hugh


Dunnett,Jack
McDonald,DrOonagh


Dunwoody, Hon MrsG.
McElhone,Frank


Eadie,Alex
McKay,Allen(Penistone)


Eastham, Ken
McKelvey,William


Ellis, R.(NED'bysh're)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Maclennan, Robert


English,Michael
McMahon,Andrew


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McNamara, Kevin


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McTaggart, Robert


Evans, John (Newton)
McWilliam,John


Ewing,Harry
Marks,Kenneth


Faulds,Andrew
Marshall,D(G'gowS'ton)


Field, Frank
Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)


Flannery,Martin
Mart'mM(G'gowS'burn)


Fletcher, Ted(Dartington)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maxton, John


Ford, Ben
May nard, Miss Joan


Forrester,John
Meacher,Michael






Mellish,RtHon Robert
Short, Mrs Renée


Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, RtHon J. (Deptford)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Silverman, Julius


Mitchell,Austin (Grimsby)
Skinner.Dennis


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Smith, RtHonJ. (N Lanark)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Soley, Clive


Mulley, RtHonFrederick
Spriggs, Leslie


Newens,Stanley
Stallard.A.W.


O'Halloran,Michael
Stoddart, David


O'Neill,Martin
Stott, Roger


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Straw,Jack


Palmer,Arthur
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Park, George
Thomas,Dafydd(Merioneth)


Parker,John
Thomas,Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Parry, Robert
Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)


Pavitt,Laurie
Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)


Pendry,Tom
Tilley, John


Penhaligon, David
Tinn,James


Pitt,WilliamHenry
Torney,Tom


Powell, RtHon J.E. (SDown)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wainwright, E .(DearneV)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wainwright,RtHon H.(ColneV)


Race, Reg
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Radice, Giles
Weetch, Ken


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Wellbeloved,James


Richardson,Jo
Welsh,Michael


Roberts,Albert(Normanton)
Whitlock,William


Roberts,Allan (Bootle)
Wigley,Dafydd


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Willey, RtHon Frederick


Roberts,Gwilym (Cannock)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Robertson,George
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Robinson, G. (CoventryNW)
Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)


Rodgers, RtHon William
Wilson, RtHon Sir H.(H'ton)


Rooker, J.W.
Wilson, William (C'trySE)


Roper,John
Winnick,David


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Woodall, Alec


Rowlands,Ted
Woolmer,Kenneth


Ryman,John
Wright,Sheila


Sandelson,Neville
Young, David (BoltonE)


Sever, John



Sheerman,Barry
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheldon, RtHon R.
Mr. George Morton and


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Dr. Edmund Marshall.

Question accordingly agreed to

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 23rd March 1982.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 23rd March may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned befor that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 24th March 1982.

Report and Third Reading

2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at seven o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3)The resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3. — (1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceeidings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatiory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and New Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on first allotted days

7. — (1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If the firstallotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall he added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9. —(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10. — (1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to bee taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Homeless Persons (Report)

Mr. A. W. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for guidance more than anything. In The Guardian today there is an article on the first major national report by a Government for 10 years on the problems of homelessness. I am the chairman of the all-party group for the homeless and rootless. We are concerned about the issues in the report.
Since I arrived at the House early today I have been trying to obtain a copy of the report. It is on sale in Her Majesty's Stationery Office, it has been reviewed in the press and people on the street have copies, but no hon. Member has one. There is not a copy in the House. I have been to the Vote Office, the Library, the general office and your office, Mr. Speaker. I filled in a green card. I could wait perhaps two weeks for the result. I have tried to explore every conceivable channel.
How can we do our job if we have to rely on secondhand reports in newspapers?

Mr. David Ennals: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was the first chairman of the Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless. I followed the same route as my hon. Friend, and I, too, have been unable to obtain the report.
I understand that the report has been heavily edited and many of the recommendations have been excluded, so it is even more important to see what has finally been published.

Mr. David Stoddart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I, too, am interested in the subject. I recently had an Adjournment debate on it.
This is not the first time that we have had a problem with reports. Hon. Members are being treated as second-class citizens. We are sick and tired of being the last to see Government publications. You are the guardian of Back-Bench rights, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will put the Government in their place and tell them to do their job properly.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened with concern to the right hon. and two hon. Members. I shall look into the matter to see whether the papers can be made available. I believe that they will be. I do not know why they are not available already.
The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the House is in the Chamber, perhaps it would be helpful if he could explain why the report has not been made available.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day — Canada Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We are nearing the end of the process of considering the Bill in this House. We can all agree that it has a unique nature.
The purpose of the legislation is to give effect to a request for the amendment of the Canadian constitution, which amendment was laid before Parliament last December on the basis of a Solemn Address to Her Majesty from both Houses of the Canadian Parliament. The procedure follows a constitutional precedent stretching back for well over a century, during which the Parliament in Westminster has passed on no fewer than 14 occasions Acts amending the Canadian constitution.
This occasion is, however, a special one. The Bill will be the last of the line, because it will transfer the responsibility for amendments to the Canadian constitution to the Canadians. I do not believe that there is an hon. Member present who questions the fact that Canada is the right place for legislative authority over the Canadian constitution to reside. This is, therefore, an historic moment and one that we should welcome.
The Government have taken the view—shared, I believe, by the majority of hon. Members, as well as by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee—that, since this proposal for legislation has been put to us at the request and with the consent of the Canadian Parliament, and with the support of the majority of the provinces, it is our responsibility to enact the legislation in the form in which it has been requested. In this sense, the Bill has unique and unusual characteristics, which have imposed certain restraints on the degree of ministerial involvement in the substance.
In the process of examining the legislation many parts of the Bill have had a thorough airing in the House. Several hon. Members have subjected the Bill to the scrutiny that they customarily bring to bear on legislation in respect of territories—unlike Canada—for which the Government of the United Kingdom have administrative responsibility. That has followed naturally from the fact that the Bill includes detailed provisions touching on many political and social matters of concern to hon. Members.
Although the Government would not endorse some of the opinions that have been expressed, we believe that hon. Members had every right to express the views that they held strongly. As I said in Committee last week, I believe that what has been said has been noted by our Canadian friends. Indeed, I know that to be the case. Paradoxically, it is perhaps a comment on the close and easy relations that exist between the United Kingdom and Canada at so many levels that hon. Members have felt so much concern and have been able to bring to bear the knowledge and experience that have animated our debate.
For those of us on both sides of the Atlantic who have been closely involved in the complexities of the process

of patriation of the Canadian constitution which stretch back over a number of years, this has been an absorbing political and constitutional question.
This is an important Bill, because it marks the formal removal of an anomalous qualification to the exercise by Canada of its independence—an independence which de facto stretches back for many decades.
It is important because, with the removal of this unnatural anachronism, we may expect that the energies of many on both sides of the Atlantic, which have been preoccupied with the resolution of the constitutional question, may now be channelled into the further development of relations between this country and Canada.
In considering the Third Reading of the Bill—I should say to the House in passing that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to wind up the debate—I should like to reflect for a moment on the significance of the wider relationship between our two countries.
Canada is a key member of the Commonwealth, linked with the United Kingdom through several centuries of common history, including the comradeship of two World Wars. Apart from these undoubted ties of kinship and sentiment, there are further links in the form of common membership of the NATO Alliance, of the OECD group of industrialised countries and of many other international organisations. Canada is of course a highly valued member of the international community.
There is between our two countries a profound friendship, which I do not believe any hon. Member would wish to see diminished, and we look forward to a further expansion of the political, commercial and social activities in which Britain and Canada are jointly engaged.
This afternoon, I attended the service in Westminster Abbey to mark Commonwealth Day. I can think of few more appropriate days for the House to complete its consideration of a Bill that will open a new phase in the relations of our two countries within the Commonwealth.
I therefore call upon my hon. Friends and hon. Members to support the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I think that the whole House will join the Minister in his expressions of friendship towards Canada on behalf of the people of this country. It has been a long friendship, and I am sure that it will be a continuing one. I am equally sure that it will survive some of the criticism that I and other hon. Members have made about the constitution itself and the way in which it has been advanced by the Government in this House.
From time to time, we have expressed, some very fervently, misgivings about the timing of the Bill, the vagueness of some of its contents and some significant omissions. Underlying all that, however, is a genuine desire on the part of all of us that the patriation of Canada's constitution and the outcome of the constitutional conference that will follow will be attended with great success and will be a matter for rejoicing by all the peoples of Canada.
As the Minister has said, this is an historic Bill, and a very unusual one as it severs a bond that few people even knew existed—the bond whereby Britain alone has exclusive power to amend fundamental parts of the Canadian constitution. To sever that bond required the


request and consent of Canada. That request has now been forthcoming, endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the provinces—a situation that did not obtain a year ago.
Because of the change in the circumstances—and a remarkable change it has been in just over 12 months—it is imperative that the House of Commons should now signify its assent to the request. That has been the recommendation that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in leading for the Opposition have made throughout the debates, despite the qualifications that we have expressed in respect of a number of particulars.
I have no doubt that patriation will be a complete success if all Canadian people can feel that they have been and will continue to be at the centre of decision making, involved in all its complexities and actively influencing the formation of decisions that affect their lives. The Opposition have been trying to promote that objective. I am well aware that sometimes we have been criticised by people in Canada for adopting that posture, as some of them believe that we should simply have rubber stamped the Bill. To some extent, the Minister has endorsed our stand. He has commended the criticisms as being properly made in this forum, although I fully appreciate that he does not go along with our criticisms.
It has been the Opposition's judgment that success is more likely if, as friends, we voice our anxieties and, more importantly, the anxieties of important groups in Canada who feel that their pleas for justice have not been satisfactorily acknowledged hitherto. It is for that reason that we have focused attention on some of the main features of the case presented to us by the aboriginal peoples. We have run the risk of criticism, and I have been accused of interfering in the affairs of Canada. That is a mistaken impression. Happily, however, that has not been the view of wide sections of the Canadian press.
I shall emphasise the principal points that we have raised on Second Reading and in Committee. The Minister has said that the points that have been made in debate have been noted in Canada, and he says that he knows that well. I am sure that no one would doubt his word on that.
Before emphasising some of the points, I join the Minister in paying tribute to those who have made such prodigous efforts to keep hon. Members informed about events in Canada. They have briefed us about the Bill and have gone out of their way to meet hon. Members to discuss problems affecting the legislation. Like the Minister, I acknowledge the efforts made by the representatives of the federal Government, who have listened to our debates for many long, and, perhaps, tedious hours, and to the representatives of the Indian peoples, many of whom have travelled thousands of miles to be present to help us in our deliberations. I also acknowledge the efforts of the representatives of the provinces—not least, Quebec.
When the debates began, the Opposition voiced concern that the Government were trying to stampede the House into completing all the stages of the Bill before the current litigation could be decisively determined in the House of Lords. Now that we have reached the final stage, I still believe that that criticism was valid. If the Government had waited until 15 March, or a few days longer, for the conclusion of the case, I do not believe for one moment that the case for patriation would have been

imperilled in any way. Indeed, I believe that the opposite would have been the case. The Government would have emerged with far cleaner hands than is now possible. Justice would have been done and would have been seen to be done, and much resentment, which I fear will still be felt, would have been obviated. Instead, the Government will be charged with having colluded with the federal Government in presenting the Bill and pushing it through with unnecessary haste—the first of the Committee days coming just three parliamentary days after Second Reading. That may not be unprecedented, but it is still not helpful to the reputation of this House.
It would have been infinitely more helpful to the cause of the federal and provincial Governments if they had responded to the highly relevant matters about Quebec and the aboriginal peoples to which hon. Members have drawn attention. Unfortunately, that reluctance to respond may have reinforced the doubts and anxieties of those people about what they consider to be the motives of the Governments.
Many of those anxieties may be misplaced, but they exist and it is still not too late for a positive response to be forthcoming before Parliament has concluded its consideration of the Bill. I hope that between now and the concluding stages of the Bill in another place, or at least before the first constitutional conference takes place, the Canadian federal Government will make abundantly plain their views on some of those difficult matters.
That brings me to the value and importance of consultation. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that it is a matter for regret that the Indian peoples were not joined in the consultations that led to the formulation of the proposals before us. They have frequently not been consulted over many matters that affect their rights, their way of life and their cultural and educational programmes. They have not been involved, sufficiently or at all, in managing and regulating their own fisheries and other rights. They have not been sufficiently consulted about the reasons for, and the methods needed to combat, the high drop-out from schools, the enormously high level of unemployment on the reserves, alcohol abuse and a host of other problems that beset them. They have also not been consulted sufficiently when their lands and way of life have been threatened by development projects or when environmental damage and a disregard for their rights have been found necessary in the interests of modern technology and industry, from the benefits of which they have, all too often, been excluded.
It was made clear to me when I visited Canada recently that the expansion of the needs of modern industry has collided head on with the aboriginal peoples. Perhaps there is a lack of understanding by both the Indian peoples and the modern sections of society. Perhaps sufficient acknowledgment is not given to the fact that Indians regard their land and treaty rights as more than just a piece of commercial property.
The Indians claim that recent events have underlined the need for increased consultation and participation at band, provincial and national levels. That has not happened in the past and they sense that they do not effectively influence decisions that have a direct impact on them, their culture and their way of life.
Let me illustrate that with one example that I came across at first hand when visiting the Sakani tribe north of Mackenzie. I was told that lands had been confiscated for hydro-electric purposes 10 years ago and that no


compensation had yet been paid. Lakes have been dammed, valuable fishing rights lost and trapping lines extinguished, thereby depriving Indians of one of their links to survival. If that is true, it is no wonder that they do not have great confidence in promises of consultation on the constitutional conferences.
It is a sad fact, which cannot be altered now, that the advice of the aboriginal peoples was not sought before the constitutional proposals were drafted. They regard that as a failure which represents a breach of their treaty rights, but all the damage to confidence could be redressed if the Canadian federal Government were to declare that the Indian peoples will be involved as profoundly as the provincial Governments in the task of identifying and defining their rights, which is on the agenda for the first conference, and that they will have a major role in settling the agenda of that conference, determining who are to be their representatives and settling those matters that are essential to the lives of their people.
I understand that the Indians are asking for an assurance that the constitutional conference will not be cut off before satisfactory decisions are made to allay their doubts. They ask for assurances that there is no intention to impose on them decisions that could impair any reasonable chance of their making a worthwhile contribution to the future of Canada, which I am sure all hon. Members want.
The Indian people are looking for a watertight undertaking that there will be no collusion between the federal and provincial Governments to manipulate the constitution to deprive the Indians of their treaty rights and their land. In the light of the debates that have taken place here and in Canada, I do not believe that that situation will emerge, but the Indians still have doubts about that and I hope that they will be allayed.
The Indians seek a binding undertaking that the word "existing" which has been imported into clause 35 and has been the subject of much comment in the Houses of Commons here and in Canada has not been imported in order to deprive them of, or to adulterate, their treaty and aboriginal rights. I know that Canada's Minister of Justice, Mr. Chrétien, has said that the word is "meaningless", but many of us, here and in Canada, and in our sister party in the Canadian Parliament, have found his explanation unconvincing. The trouble is that imprecision about basic rights is obviously unsatisfactory.
The Indians are concerned that the constitution will be construed by the courts as meaning that their rights, which may not yet have been adjudicated upon, may be ignored and that rights that have been trespassed upon in the past and allegedly extinguished by prescription, will be deemed to have been forfeited.
The Indian peoples seek assurances that the constitutional talks will not end after one year and that they will not be shut out of any succeeding conference, as appears to be possible under clause 49. They would interpret such an act as a savage repudiation of their basic rights. Many misgivings have been expressed about that in the House.
Is it conceivable that all those outstanding problems can be resolved in a year? What if they are not? Who will then decide on the interpretation and definition of the Indian people's rights and how will that be done? What right of appeal exists against any injustice that may occur? I do not suggest that miracles can be worked overnight or that problems that have beset the Indian peoples can vanish overnight, but surely it is not too much to expect that

before patriation, or at least before the first constitutional conference is held, glaring ambiguities in the federal and provincial Governments' attitudes and policies towards treaty and aboriginal rights will be cleared up.
I am reinforced in making those points by the Minister's comments that our deliberations have been listened to with care in Canada. I also believe that to be the case. Having reiterated the doubts, I repeat that some of the doubts have been exaggerated. In a battle of ideas where people are seeking to advance a cause it is not unknown that exaggerated statements may be made.
We have embarked on a course about which the House, with a few exceptions, will be delighted. We are about to abandon what many of us regard as an unnecessary task. We wish Canada and all its peoples the success that they deserve. In their dealings in international affairs over the years they have a record on human rights which is second to none. They have shown in their recent observations and policies about delicate matters affecting central America that they are capable and, indeed, desirous of taking a line that is independent of their neighbours in the United States.
My wish, as I have said before, is that the Canadian people will be able to rejoice in the patriation of their constitution and that the friendship between our two peoples will be reinforced and made ever stronger by the step that this Parliament is about to take.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I explained on the Second Reading why I could not vote in favour of the passage of the Bill at this time. I took the decision on the high ground of constitutional propriety and legal principle. I am bound to say that nothing I have heard or read either on Second Reading or in subsequent proceedings in the House, or in the spirited correspondence in The Times newspaper, has caused me to doubt the validity and correctness of the submission that I made to the House. I rise now to say, simply and shortly, that this is still my position, and that I also know it to be that of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
To legislate while these constitutional matters are still awaiting consideration and decision by the courts in Canada is to incur the risk of a conflict between, on the one hand, an Act of Parliament valid in English law according to the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament, which is appropriate to us here as a unitary State without a written constitution and, on the other hand, if the Quebec appeal ultimately succeeds—it is not for us in the House or in this country to anticipate the result of these legal proceedings—a decision by those courts that there has been a breach of the constitutional convention at the heart of the federal-provincial relationship. It is a conflict, if we proceed to legislate now, that we cannot be certain to avoid.
That would be an outcome as unwelcome as it would be dangerous. It is a risk that we neither need nor should incur. It is a risk that a short delay can effectively remove. Surely a short delay is but a small price to pay for so great a gain.

Mr. James Callaghan: I rise to support the Third Reading of the Bill and to congratulate the Canadian Government, and especially the Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, on having secured the assent of


most of those concerned, certainly the majority of the provinces and the people of Canada. Last week, I was invited to Canada—and I went. It is said of those who come from Cardiganshire that they cast their bread upon the waters when they know the tide is coming in. I was glad to go.
An old friend of many hon. Members, Mr. Paul Martin, a former Canadian High Commissioner, former Leader of the Government in the Senate, and former Secretary of State for External Affairs—a very distinguished statesman—was having the honour of a chair of international affairs named after him at the University of Windsor, Ontario. I had the good fortune to be asked to speak before a large assembly at which the Prime Minister and a number of members of the Canadian Cabinet were present.
I took the opportunity—I know that the House will agree that this was right—to say that, whatever may have been stated in debates in this House by those who had more reservations than myself about the Bill, there was nothing obstructive or frivolous in the case that was made, that these were genuine concerns and that all hon. Members felt that if a Bill was placed in front of us any hon. Member should have the opportunity of speaking to it, although it was my hope that they would not vote on it. However, there were some votes.
I might add, in view of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis), that I left behind a couple of copies of Hansard. Provided that these are read, hon. Members can be certain that whatever the High Commissioner or anyone else may have done, there is a full awareness of what took place here. Nor should we overlook the fact that the debates have been fully reported in the Canadian press. Hon. Members' speeches have been dissected, some flatteringly and some not so flatteringly. Comparisons have been made between hon. Members and Members of the Canadian House of Commons, not always to our advantage. Generally, hon. Members can be sure that the full value of everything stated in this House has been noted.
I wish therefore to utter one word of warning. It is this. These affairs must be affairs between the Canadian Parliament, the Canadian courts and the people of Canada whether they live in Quebec or whether they be Indians. Nothing that we say should detract from that. There is, on the part of some people, a last-minute discovery of Indians for whom we have had responsibility that we have not exercised for 100 years. We must not treat the people of Canada, the Government of Canada or the courts of Canada with any less respect than would be found in our approach to these matters with regard to our responsibilities to our own citizens. There is a full awareness of them.
It is not for us to act in a grandmotherly way and to try to teach the Canadian Parliament or the Canadian courts what to do or how they should handle these matters that will now fall to them. I say that only to try to redress the balance. If so much emphasis is to be put on the rights and the grievances—I concede the grievances—of these groups, it should be stated, on the other hand, that it is the responsibility, which I have no doubt will be carried out, of those in authority in Canada, to ensure that the grievances are remedied.
I think during my visit that I removed some doubts. I had the opportunity to defend the position of some of my hon. Friends before the Prime Minister and most of the members of his Cabinet. It was a large audience. I did my best for my colleagues. There seems, however, to be a general feeling among Canadian politicians that we in this House are awfully slow in getting on with the process.
There is no doubt that when this act takes place it will be treated with great solemnity and great formality in Canada. I should therefore like to put to the Government the suggestion that the Parliament at Westminster might be associated with the formal handing over of the Act of independence. It would be less than the occasion merits if we were not to do so.
I should like finally to echo what has been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central and by the Minister. If there is one thing that those who visit Canada from time to time know—it was emphasised to me last week—it is that, although Canada wishes to live on the best of terms with its great southern neighbour, it does not wish to be swamped by the United States. It wants to hear an independent voice. It likes to hear even a British voice, on occasion, that is not putting forward an American point of view.
Canada has a big task in continuing to build up a nation out of the numerous ethnic groups that make up that great country. I believe that this measure, treated solemnly and formally by Canada, will be yet another opportunity for Canada to assist in building the nation that it seeks to build. It has a very great future. I should like humbly to wish Canada every success in the task it is undertaking in preserving its own separate voice and in feeling that it has close connections with this country and to urge, as did my hon. Friend, that we should do all we can to build up our relations with that great country, which I have no doubt has a considerable future ahead of it.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The House hopes that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) had a pleasant and useful visit to Canada. We are grateful to him for putting in a word for us with the Canadian Government and for trying to put this unruly Assembly in a better light.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, this is a unique and unusual Bill. It has been educational—educational for us—because by it a number of us have learnt a great deal about Canada. It has brought us closer to our counterparts, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, in the other House of Commons and the Senate, many of whom are joined with us in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
As part of this educational process we have all received hundreds of letters from Canadians of all parties and none. I am most grateful to them for acquainting me with their opinions, which have been varied. Some objected to the Charter of Rights as diminishing the parliamentary system that they cherish, as we do. The charter, for understandable reasons, differs from the late John Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights, which is a statute of Canada 1960 and preserves the supremacy of the Canadian Parliament. Some of my letters, notably from Quebec, have told me that they do not want patriation of the constitution.
During the weekend I turned the pages of a book written by Professor George Glazebrook entitled "A Short History


of Canada". It was published in 1954—some time ago. Professor Glazebrook remarked on the retention, after the Statute of Westminster, of an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, long since gone, and to
the process of amendment of the British North America Act by the United Kingdom Parliament. These however represented Canadian wishes, however confusing they might be to a logician, were not to be regarded as compromising equality of status.
It is worth remembering that the continuance of the British North America Act was not the sole derogation in the Statute of Westminster from the sovereignty of Commonwealth realms. The Statute of Westminster bound signatories to accept the veto of partners on any
alteration to the law touching the Succession to the Throne or Royal Style and Titles.
Therefore, Canada limits the sovereignty of the United Kingdom in respect to the Head of State, a position about which the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) had something to say in earlier debates.
I doubt whether, until recently, reliance on a statute of this Parliament as the basis of Canadian confederation has exercised the minds of many in Canada or in this country. Anomalies can have utility as well as old world charm. Conservatives can warm to them and it is part of the liberal ethos to remove them. As long ago as 1922 another professor, Professor Kennedy of Trinity college, Dublin, published a book called "The Constitution of Canada", in which he said that
suggestions are abroad for change and the imperial government will be brought sooner or later face to face with a position of extreme delicacy.
I wish that all speeches in our debate had reckoned with the extreme delicacy of our position. Not even the imperious impatience of Mr. Trudeau, or his somewhat lavatorial imagery, justify the assaults that have been made in debate upon Canadian conduct of Canadian affairs, of the kind, for example, made from the Opposition Front Bench on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis), who gave the impression, although perhaps he did not intend to, that he equated what he deemed our right to exercise criticism of Canadian policy towards aboriginal peoples with the right to criticise the absence of certain human rights in South Africa or El Salvador. That would seem to be a most unfortunate way of talking.
If, as the hon. Gentleman has said, King George's or Queen Victoria's treaty obligations were not long since for implementation by the Crown in Canada and Her Majesty's Canadian Minister, we, on this side of the Atlantic and in this House, have been criminally remiss in only awakening now to the existence of those obligations. My main concern is to ensure that in the Bill the request, which it is the purpose of the Bill to satisfy, came in due form and that, in the words of the third report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, it
in all the circumstances conveys the clearly expressed wishes of Canada as a federally structured whole.
However, Quebec still dissents and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who knows so much more than I do about constitutional law, and all law, has made the point again tonight. Quebec has had its veto through the generations. I have spoken of the unique position of that province, both on Second Reading and in Committee, and I shall not repeat myself now.
The Government will have their Bill tonight. I voted for it on Second Reading out of deference to the dignity and

sovereignty of Canada, but it would be misunderstood if I were to vote for the Bill on Third Reading. I hope that there will not be a Division. If there is, I shall abstain.
The Bill will now go to the other place. It is not for us to tell their Lordships how to deal with the Bill in their turn. However, if the matter of the Quebec veto were to be settled by the courts before it was finally disposed of in this Parliament—the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that we should have respect for the courts as well as the Parliament of Canada—no one would be worse off.
It may not appear so to Her Majesty's present Government in Canada, but many have asked the obvious question why there is such haste in changing the constitution of 115 years, given the recognition of all parties in this place that in future Canadians should have a constitution made for Canadians in Canada. Be all that as it may, on this Commonwealth day I join all hon. Members in this debate in wishing all that is good to what that great Canadian Tory, Sir John A. Macdonald, called not the dominion but the kingdom of Canada. May Canada flourish with all her provinces and peoples.

Mr. Bruce George: If I strike a note of dissent from this Anglo-Canadian "love-in" it is not out of any disrespect for Canada. Quite the reverse. One of the reasons why I have been opposing patriation on principle, the timing of it and the process under which it has been undertaken is that I hold Canada in such high esteem. Canada is not just made up of the two so-called founding nations, the English and the French. There have been other founding nations whose interests have undoubtedly been neglected in the proceedings in Canada, although not neglected here. No native person or representative could say that the British Parliament had not espoused their cause with considerable vigour. I shall be opposing the Third Reading, and I ask other hon. Members to join me Those hon. Members who cannot oppose it will, I hope, like the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), abstain.
I am saddened to learn that on Wednesday a petition that was launched by the Indian Association of Alberta will be examined by the Law Lords. It is tragic that we should be proceeding today, two days before an important decision may be made by the House of Lords, and, shortly before Second Reading in the House of Lords the Court of Appeal in Quebec will be beginning its investigation. It is sad that we are proceeding before that is concluded.
One of the most important remarks in our proceedings was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). He said that if we proceeded and neglected the Quebec case there were those in Quebec who would see the "Anglos" ganging up on both sides of the Atlantic against the French in Canada. If that occurs, we shall have to accept some responsibility for it.
I do not see why we should be moving quite so quickly. I do not agree with those who, in the atmosphere of self-congratulation—justifiable in some case—argue that it is all over bar the shouting. It may be that those hon. Members who vote against Third Reading will not be successful. But the Bill will go to another place, and the House of Lords knows a great deal about what it is to be an ancient institution under threat of extinction. There are those in the House of Lords who will be prepared to devote the same concern that many hon. Members have in this


House to the rights of indigenous peoples. We are talking about the rights of the fullblooded Indians, the Métis and the non-status Indians, and the Inuit—people who have expressed their views by corning over here and by writing to us.
There are those who think that the Indian nations in Canada can give very little to the Canada of the future and that their contribution is one that has passed. We ought to pause and say that there is a vibrant culture within the Indian nations of Canada. They have given a great deal to Canada. After all, it was very important that there was assistance given to the settlers in developing Canada. Indeed, in the whole of America it was Indian gold that helped finance the economic boom of Europe. We must also remember that half the world's food supply has been grown from crops domesticated by Indians. That is often almost forgotten. We must realise the importance of Indian philosophy and Indian culture and the respect that the Indians have for the environment. We must remember, too, that it was the Americans who looked very closely at government amongst the Iroquois in devising their own system of checks and balances. There are people who have contributed a great deal to Canada from among the native peoples in both peace and war.
The native peoples in Canada argue that their culture should not be swamped. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), himself a former Prime Minister, talked about the fear of Canada being swamped by America. That is true, but the Indian nations in Canada fear being swamped by a dominant white culture. The Indians have been subjected to the process of civilising—"teaching the savages, saving them from themselves", and "remaking the Indian in the white man's mould." That has been Government policy from the beginning. It has been a process of assimilating the native peoples into the dominant culture.
The Indian peoples are reacting against that. In their contact with the native peoples, the whites offered treaties, the Bible, bottles of whisky and the bludgeon. It is not surprising that people reject this forced "civilising" process.
The native peoples have demands that we obviously have not been able to realise, although we have been prepared to put their case and although there are differences within the organisations based on whether they are full-blooded Indians, mixed bloods or Inuit. Nevertheless, there are certain common characteristics in their cause, including the right to have greater control over their destiny.
We talk a lot about self-determination. Why should not nations within major countries such as Canada have the right to a greater control over their own destinies? After all, prior to contact with the British and the French, they governed themselves. Ultimately, there has to be a greater recognition of the desire for more control, political and economic, over their own destiny.
It is also important that the Indian view that the treaties that they sign and that they hold sacred is accepted by those who sign the treaties with them and that there should be a recognition of the concept of aboriginal rights, which is being chipped away by the courts.
It is important for the Indians to recognise a secure land base upon their reserves, to have control over what is on the soil and under the soil, and not to have that resource

taken from them. It is important that their language and culture are preserved and that they are not subject to assimilation. In short, it is vital that there is a positive assertion on the part of the Canadian Government that aboriginal and treaty rights have existed in the past, still exist and should be confirmed and upheld in the future—a reaffirmation of the special status of aboriginal peoples.
There is still time, in the period before the House of Lords deliberates, for the Canadian Government to come to this Parliament and make a positive gesture and not simply to display an indifference towards the native peoples. Our debates in the House have been reported. The mail that we have received shows that much of what we say is being reported, at least in Canada, although not to a great extent in this country, where the issue of aboriginal rights has met with a massive indifference from the media.
The Bill is detrimental to native peoples. When one thinks of the making of the constitution in the United States of America, the image grows up of constitution-makers being neutral, fine, upstanding figures who subsequently are idealised by posterity. When we look at the process by which this constitution was made, we see that many of the dealings were sordid. It would be very difficult for historians to eulogise those provincial Premiers, the Prime Minister of Canada and these proceedings as though those figures had brought down tablets from on high and applied them neutrally. The tablets may be of benefit to some in Canada but certainly not to a minority of the people who were there first. A constitution must be founded on consent. A constitution that is not so founded will have great difficulty in being accepted.
Even though the champagne corks are popping provisionally, and will be popping again when the House of Lords finally passes the legislation, many people will view the proceedings with rather less affection than those who will be celebrating.
The Bill is detrimental to native peoples. If we look at the Charter of Rights and compare what is contained in the Bill about those international obligations that Canada has signed—the international covenant of civil and political rights, the International Labour Organisation's tribal populations convention, which they have not signed but which I wish they had, and the Helsinki Final Act—we see a gulf between the aspirations contained in the charter and those that Canada ostensibly supports.
There has grown up a body of human rights law that ought to be observed. Since the Second World War we have seen a plethora of international conventions, conferences and United Nations declarations on human rights. One person has said:
Human rights are no longer a stray collection of moral principles which ought to influence the legislature. Every human right can be legally defined, interpreted and implemented. Human rights now form a coherent body of law.
Clause 35 is a sordid agreement between the provinces and the Federal Government—what Mr. Chrétien described as "quintessentially a liberal compromise". The process by which that was agreed was quite despicable, and it is obvious that aboriginal rights are not entrenched in the Bill. There has been a lack of consultation with the Indians in creating the so-called accord, and it is obvious that the Indians will play only a marginal role in the post-patriation conference. As some hon. Members said last week, they are not even given observer status at the


conference that will take place 15 years from now. By that time it is surely hoped by some Canadians that the Indian problem will have been resolved.
The amending formula can be used to extinguish treaty rights and aboriginal title. Indeed, the land base of the Indians can be taken away, as can their resources. The role of the governor-general can be, and has been used hitherto, to protect aboriginal peoples. Lord Denning pointed out in his recent judgment how important was the role of the governor-general. But in future the governor-general will be powerless to assist native peoples if their rights are trampled on. In this Bill, in defining the Canadian constitution, there is no reference to the crucial element of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which Lord Denning regarded as the Indians' Bill of Rights. In the proceedings that have been concocted by politicians in Canada, which they have dignified with the name of a constitution, many of the processes can be used to introduce legislation without native consent, and legislation that would be inimical to native interests.
Hon. Members have sought to remedy some of the Bill's deficiencies by means of amendments. Some people will say "What an impertinence that Members of Parliament here should table amendments to try to improve legislation in Canada." I recognise that, but it is my view, as a Member of Parliament who has an interest in human rights, that we have every right to table amendments, and the Government have every right to defeat them, as they have done. Some of our amendments were an attempt properly to define aboriginal rights. We sought to devise a real process of consultation for native peoples in the immediate post-patriation conference, and a real role in the conference 15 years hence. We proposed an aboriginal rights commission, which could be set up if the post-patriation conference failed to reach proper agreement. That aboriginal rights commission could be of enormous assistance in protecting aboriginals in Canada.
In other amendments we proposed amending the amending formula to ensure real consent by native peoples before decisions affecting them were made. We proposed amendments to strengthen the role of the governor-general. We proposed amendments to reinsert the important Royal Proclamation within the constitution of Canada. We fought, and lost, to delete the word "existing" from clause 35 which so many people—politicians in Canada, and certainly natives themselves, as well as academic observers—said was detrimental to native peoples. We fought, too, to prevent future legislation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we must not go over the amendments again. This is the Third Reading, and the hon. Gentleman should stick to what is in the Bill, not what he would like to have seen in it.

Mr. George: I am delighted that I managed to say all that I intended to say before you pulled me up, Mr. Weatherill.
If the Bill passes all its stages unamended, there are many people who will be sad—not just native peoples, but the many people who have written to me. Since the campaign began, I have received more than 3,500 letters, of which only five were abusive or supported the Prime Minister. To those who were abusive, I say "Same to you, fella". I hope that those who have not received replies will realise the difficulties that we are in. Some people will

continue to express their opposition to the measure in the courts, through the legislators in Canada, and through international facilities that will be available to those who wish to have recourse to those institutions.
Native peoples have fought hard to preserve their right to exist, their land, and their livelihood. Many of us here have done all that is in our power to expose Canada's intentions and hope that Canada will recognise what has been said. We hope, even at this late stage, that Canada will take measures to allay the fears that many people have expressed during the past few weeks.
I have no regrets at having opposed the Prime Minister. She has been invited to Canada in the past, and no doubt she will be invited there again. The first time that I went to Canada and expressed my hostility to a somewhat surprised audience, I was rewarded for my pains by a debate in the Canadian House of Commons, suggesting that I be given the elbow from the country unless I mended my ways. I have not bowed to such pressure. I hope that the campaign will not cease, following the passage of the measure through this legislature. I hope that native peoples will recognise that a great fight has been put up on their behalf. Canadians must surely recognise that merely passing legislation from this House denying the rights of native peoples is far from being the end of the battle. That battle will continue, and I hope that it will finally be resolved when the native peoples of Canada are afforded the rights and dignity to which I believe they are fully entitled.

Sir Bernard Braine: Not one of us in this House would dissent from what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said about the constitutional future of Canada resting with the Canadian Parliament, the provincial Assemblies, the courts and the people of Canada, and with no one else. If the Bill provided for the repeal of our powers to amend the Canadian constitution, we would all gladly nod it through with the greatest good will towards the Canadian people and that would be the end of the matter. However, the Bill contains more than that. It contains a new constitution and a Bill of Rights which Canada was incapable of legislating for herself, and parts of which have not even been debated in the Canadian Parliament.
The content of the Bill and its schedules has occupied the attention of this House and its Committee for nearly 19 hours. Virtually every minute has been spent on discussing issues of great importance both to this country and to Canada. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he told his Canadian audience that we have not addressed ourselves to these weighty matters in a light or frivolous way.
This has been a debate without precedent. It has been an extraordinary debate, and one which I hope we shall not experience again, because we who have moved amendments have been talking to a blank wall. Ministers have given us answers that have borne no relation to the arguments. They remind me of the King in Hamlet whose words "fly up", but whose "thoughts remain below". They have told us that we have no option—echoing, of course, Prime Minister Trudeau—but to accede to the Canadian Government's request to enact the Bill without amendment. They are not open to any persuasion, and that is wrong.
We warn that to ignore Quebec, one of the two founder nations of the Canadian federation, is to run grave risks, and Ministers clap their hands over their ears. We speak of native rights, and they turn away. They displayed a brief, fleeting moment of unease when we spoke about the international covenant on civil and political rights, but we were assured that this is a matter for Canada, not for us, completely ignoring the fact that we here are enacting legislation which the Canadian Parliament cannot itself enact, and knowing that in so doing we may be in violation of the covenant. In their attitude they signify that Prime Minister Trudeau was right when he said that British parliamentarians have no option but to hold their noses and pass this legislation.
None of us who have spoken even thought that it would be otherwise. Every word that I have uttered in the debate, and I suspect that every word uttered by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides, is addressed not to the Front Bench but to Canada where, if the letters that I have received over the past year are any guide, there is a deep unease among decent and thoughtful Canadians about the constitution to which we are being made party to foist on them. The fact remains that the Bill will leave the House today unamended, as we suspected it would, because the Government believe it expedient that that should happen and, sadly, because the Opposition Front Bench—which could have taken a different view—agreed that expediency should take precedence over principle.
Although it is to the credit of the Opposition Front Bench that it has joined in detailed examination of the grave deficiencies that mar the Bill, Opposition right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have also followed the path of expediency and have decided not to support amendments—their own included—which would have made the measure less objectionable. Presumably Opposition Members think—with what appears to me to be considerable optimism—that they may form a Government once again in the future and would prefer not to face the wrath of a Canadian Government failing to collaborate in what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) rightly described as the deception being practised upon certain important interests in Canada.
I must, therefore, make it plain that I cannot support the Bill and I shall summarise my principal reasons. I join several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), who spoke in Committee last week, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who spoke on Second Reading, in saying that it is wrong and shortsighted to pass the Bill before the Canadian courts have ruled that the Canadian Parliament's resolution is constitutional. The House is indebted to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir C. Fletcher-Cooke) for stating in their letters in The Times on 25 February and 4 March why it is unacceptable to proceed with such indecent haste with the Bill.
The case of the Quebec Government will be heard a week today in the Quebec Court of Appeal. Their case is that the Canadian Parliament's resolution—on which the Bill is based—is unconstitutional. "Unconstitutional" is a formidable word. It is unconstitutional because it does not

have the assent of the province of Quebec and does not meet the requirements of the Supreme Court of Canada—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is straying from the contents of the Bill. We heard such arguments in Committee, but they are not in order now.

Sir Bernard Braine: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I seek to stress that certain weighty matters about constitutionality relating to the Bill's contents should be brought to the attention of the House. The Bill is being rushed through without proper regard to outside events. It is highly relevant that two court cases are pending. One is to be heard in Canada, and I should have thought that that was important. If this great constitutional issue is for the Canadians and for the Canadians alone, what right have we to ignore—by rushing ahead with the Bill—what may happen in the courts of Canada? If Quebec wins its case in the Canadian court and the court rules that what is being done is unconstitutional, the matter will doubtless proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is the accepted procedure for resolving Canadian issues of the highest importance, upon which the very future of the Canadian confederation depends.
Despite the undoubted fact that Canada, by its established practices and procedures, is about to reach a Canadian decision on a Canadian issue that is vital to the future of Canada, the British Government are asking Britain to use its remaining jurisdiction—wielding what the Government have called an anachronistic power—to pre-empt a Canadian decision. What clearer example could there be of gross interference by Britain in Canada's internal affairs? It is wrong to do that. The Bill represents a blind act of expediency that threatens the very integrity of the delicately balanced union that we helped to create 115 years ago and that has long been regarded as one of the most imaginative acts of British statemanship. If, because we pre-empt Canada's internal judicial process, that delicately balanced unity is shattered and Quebec is driven from the confederation, we shall rightly be blamed by future generations of Canadians and Quebecois.
That is not all. A second legal action is pending in Britain, and the Government, in their blind haste, are ignoring it. The day after tomorrow our highest court will consider the petition of the Indians of Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and whether it should hear the Indians' application for a judicial review of their treaties with the Crown. If, on Wednesday, it is decided to hear the case, the matters to be argued will concern the Crown's obligations towards the native people of Canada. The points of argument are complex and I shall not take up time by dealing with them now. However, they are weighty and that is demonstrated by the many days of argument in the Court of Appeal, the length of the deliberations and the judgments by Lord Denning and his fellow judges.
I understand that there are additional arguments which learned counsel for the Indians has asked the Law Lords to consider when they review the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It would be wrong for me to go into details, because I am not competent to do so. However, like every other hon. Member, I am competent to make a political judgment on the central issue which the Government are determined, once again, to pre-empt.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) intervened on Second Reading while my right hon. Friend


the Lord Privy Seal was giving his reasons for not waiting to hear the decision that is shortly to be made by the other place. The hon. Gentleman was right to ask why the Government had delayed the Bill until the ruling of the Court of Appeal on 28 January, but had decided to go ahead while later proceedings were pending in the other place. My right hon. Friend referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal and said:
It was clear and definite … there comes a moment when one cannot wait for further possible litigation.… We might easily wait for years."—[Official Report, 19 February 1981; Vol. 18, c. 296.]
That was no answer to a question concerned solely with a specific action before the courts. To assert that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was clear and definite was to imply that the Law Lords would automatically endorse it. The day after tomorrow we shall learn whether my right hon. Friend was right. Surely another two days' delay would not have caused a crisis in our relations with the Canadian Government. The Canadians have waited 50 years for control of their constitution and all that was needed before we proceeded was a further two days. If the judgment of the Court of Appeal was undeniably correct, my right hon. Friend would have had a more plausible excuse for pressing ahead with the Bill's completion. However, as we all know, the Law Lords not infrequently overrule the Court of Appeal. No doubt the Government felt that it was better not to risk that.
What would have happened if the Third Reading had been delayed for a couple of weeks? First, we would have had the benefit of a full hearing of the Alberta Indians' case. That would have given the House an opportunity to hear the Law Lords decision concerning the Crown's responsibilities in the right of the United Kingdom. Secondly, it would have allowed us to take into account the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal on whether the Bill that we are about to pass is constitutional in Canadian terms—a double risk that the Government might have been obliged to have second thoughts about this measure.
I have already contended—and I do so again—that the Government's persistence in riding roughshod over the judicial process is an unacceptable abuse of power. I have a special reason for saying that. The importance of the Alberta Indians' case is that it concerns the position of the Queen. The Bill will leave us today before we have been able to consider the Law Lords ruling on the extent of the Queen's responsibility towards the native peoples of Canada.
The Government are in a great hurry. They are rushing headlong into this legislation, blinkered against possible consequences both to Canada and to Britain. They cannot wait for next week's hearing in Quebec. They cannot even wait 48 hours for the Law Lords decision. They have made arrangements for the Second Reading in another place on 18 March and for the completion of all the Bill's stages a mere five days later. I understand that because of the different procedures in another place debate will be much more limited there than it is here.
Why such haste? I am reminded of Chesterfield's aphorism:
Whoever is in a hurry shows that the thing he is about is too big for him.
That may be too kind an explanation.
A crucial question remains unresolved, even at this late hour. It is inconceivable that Ministers have not grasped the implications, namely, the position of the Queen, both

in relation to the Indian treaties and the role of her governor-general in Canada and the fate of her discretionary powers.
Once the Canada Act becomes law, section 48 will turn the governor-general into a nodding automaton. Once the Bill is enacted, section 52 will provide that schedule B is the supreme law of Canada and that any law inconsistent with it is of no force or effect. As the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said this may be a matter for Canadians. Of course it is. This will be their problem and they will have to deal with it. However, this Parliament is required to make it possible—without our action, it cannot take place—and it should know that some of these provisions were not debated in Ottawa at all. I for one will not be party to such manipulation.
There is a further reason why I cannot support the Bill. I argued on Second Reading, and again in Committee, that if we enact the Bill as it stands we shall be in breach of our international human rights obligations. In particular, we shall be in breach of the covenant on civil and political rights which the Government have ratified, as indeed have the Government of Canada. At the same time, we shell have failed in the duty which the House owes to protect the rights of minorities and to redress their grievances when it is within our power to do so.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State did the House and myself the courtesy of giving further thought to what I said about breaches of our obligations under the international convenant. He told us that the matter had weighed upon his mind. I had no doubt that it would. He is a sincere man and he is sensitive to questions of human rights. I know that from long experience. Yet, without any kind of explanation, he pronounced himself satisfied that we would not flout the covenant by passing the Bill.
With great respect, it is of little use telling us, as he did, that the Canadian people have recourse to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. They know that very well. He will doubtless have been advised that the Human Rights Commission has already considered the case of Sandra Lovelace, a Canadian Indian victim of violations of the covenant of civil and political rights. The commission has not only considered the allegation; it found, as recently as July last, that Canada was in breach of article 27 of the covenant.
I am not plucking allegations out of the air. I am talking about the realities which Canadian Indians now understand, even if, in the past, they were ignorant of them. It is to be hoped that the Government and the Canadian Parliament will take appropriate action to remedy that violation of the covenant. I say no more about it.
The question which concerns the House is whether the Bill—not some action in Canada—for which the United Kingdom Parliament will be held responsible at the bar of history, conforms to article 2(2) of the covenant. That article requires us to take the necessary steps in accordance with our constitutional processes to adopt such legislative measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights that are recognised by the covenant.
If the Government argue that we have no responsibility for the civil and political rights of the Canadian native peoples, they are turning a blind eye to a fact that has been repeated here time and again. The undeniable fact is that the Canada Bill is going on to our statute book. It contains a detailed charter of rights and freedoms. For the moment it is a matter within our legislative jurisdiction. When it


is whipped through this House it is whipped through with all its deficiencies. If it contravenes our obligations under the covenant, that is our responsibility and no one else's.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), in an impressive speech last week, quoted a paper prepared by Professor James Fawcett, three times President of the European Commission of Human Rights. In that paper, Professor Fawcett states unequivocally that it is our business—Britain's business, the British Parliament's business—to ensure that all individuals subject to our jurisdiction have their rights recognised.
The Canadian native peoples, although not within our territory, are subject to our jurisdiction until such time as the Bill is finally enacted. It may be a constitutional fiction, but there is a responsibility here, and I for one am not prepared to rubber-stamp legislation of this kind. It is wrong for us to shuffle off the responsibility, and I shall not be associated with such a breach of our duty.
There is one hope left, and it is clearly the best hope of all. It is that Canada—a country which has been in the van of decency in international conduct throughout my life, and in particular since the Second World War—will not be deaf to what has been said in this House. It is my hope that another Parliament and another people will take heed of what is being said here. There are already indications that this hope is not without foundation.
It has been a most unusual debate. We have been talking here not to the Government Front Bench. I have been critical of Ministers, and have felt sorry, in a way, that they have been put in an embarrassing position by a request which came to them prematurely and which had not been properly thought through. I acquit the Government of any responsibility for that. The only thing that they could have done was to delay proceedings, as I have suggested, until the matter had been better clarified. That said, we have been talking here not to the Government Front Bench but across the Atlantic to another Parliament and to another people—a people with their own destiny to fulfil.
Perhaps Canadians themselves will put to their own political leaders the questions that we have raised here. Perhaps they will themselves demand the full and satisfactory answers that we have been unable to obtain here. I hope so. At least we shall have faced the issues squarely in our own House. Some of us will have tried to keep faith with our duty here and at the bar of world opinion. If the issues that we have raised are taken up again in Canada, history may well judge that our efforts have not been in vain.

Mr. David Ennals: Nothing that I shall say in relation to the Bill, the conduct of the British Government or the Canadian Government, will be said other than in a spirit of friendship with Canada which goes back well over 40 years. I discovered Canada in 1938. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I went to Windsor, Ontario. I want nothing but good relations between Britain and Canada. It is the fact that we are such good friends that enables us to speak as frankly as some of us have during the debates on the Bill.
As the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has dealt at length with the legal argument, I shall

not touch upon it, but I do not believe that we have any reason to be proud of the actions of either the British Government or the Canadian Government in relation to the Bill and the issues that lie behind it. We have before us a Bill and a Charter of Rights which, although it has been ruled we can amend, we know we cannot, and which the Government will neither justify nor explain.
The Canadian Government also appear to have sworn some sort of vow of silence. Nor has the Government Front Bench—although our Front Bench has spoken openly, it has not voted—said a word that can be helpful or reassuring about the problems that have been presented by hon. Members on both sides of the House in the debate. We have been required to put the rubber stamp of both Houses of Parliament and ultimately the seal of Her Majesty the Queen on the Bill, which does nothing to entrench the rights, traditions, nationhood and forms of self-government of the Indian peoples.
As I said on Second Reading, the sequence of events has been the wrong way round. There should have been a conference first and then a Bill rather than a Bill to be followed a year later by a conference.
If the Canadian constitution is patriated in its present form, without Indian assent being required to amend it, and without definition and protection of Indian rights, all the treaties made between the Crown and the Indians will have, in the end, meant nothing.
That is a quotation from a recent article in The Scotsman. I agree with it. Those treaties were made in peace, in trust and in good faith by both sides. The Indians were possessors of their lands long before the arrival of the Europeans. They were never enslaved or conquered. They never gave up rights to their lands or self-government. They have never wished to be white Canadians nor do they wish to be so now. They wish to preserve their proud traditions. I believe that they are right to do so and that they should not be squeezed into some common mould.
The only people so far to come well out of this constitutional argument are the Indians themselves. Both here and in Canada the Indians have spoken with great clarity and unity—greater unity than any of us expected. If we go back to 1979, we saw a massive campaign. Three hundred and fifty chiefs came to London, led by Clive Linklater—a Saulteaux Indian—who had never been to Britain before. He and his friends awoke many of us to the issues that we are now facing. The Indians are not asking for material assistance from us or for money. They are asking us to ensure, as we promised, that their constitutional status is protected in the renewed Canadian Federation. They have asked us for the constitutional tools to enable them to develop their own nationhood, their own forms of self-government and to preserve their traditions. Several hon. Members have heard Chief Solomon Sanderson forcefully expound the concept of Indian sovereignty and Indian government that is already working so well in Saskatchewan and which provides a model for future development throughout Canada.
When we have passed the Bill through all its stages in both Houses—I fear in exactly the same form as it was handed to us by the Canadian Government—I submit that we have a right to ask for a quid pro quo from Mr. Trudeau and his Government. They ask that we pass the Bill precisely as they drafted it. The Lord Privy Seal explained that it had to be passed as delivered to us. If we are good boys and it is handed back to Canada exactly as it was sent to us we have a right to expect some response from the


Canadian Government to what has been said by hon. Members from both sides of the House. The Canadian Government should thrash out an agreement with the aboriginal people.
The joint council of the National Indian Brotherhood has been meeting in Ottawa in the past few days. Its representatives asked the Canadian Government to meet them and to open a dialogue which could lead to a genuine settlement of the constitutional deadlock. They are genuine and sincere in wishing to come to terms. They do not want to lose their confidence in Britain and the treaties with the Crown.
Their approach to the Canadian Government is sincere and right. It is fair to the Canadian people, to the provinces and the Indian people that there should be a settlement in which the Indians are fully involved and for which there is agreement. There has been no response from the federal Government. They have not said that they are prepared to sit round the conference table now. They should not wait for 12 months, as the Bill provides. Mr. Trudeau is held in high respect in the House. We want him to respond now and to sit round the table with the people who have fears so that they can seek together to thrash out the difficulties and hammer out a settlement.
In the absence of any response to all that has been said by the Indian leaders and right hon. and hon. Members—and there has been no response—I cannot vote for the Bill. When I spoke against the Second Reading I said that I would vote against it. I hoped that there would be a response from the Canadian Government and that my fears and the fears of the Indian people on whose behalf I speak would have been allayed. Instead, there has been silence. I can do no other than say that I cannot support the Third Reading. I hope that there will be a response from the Canadian Government as the Bill proceeds through another place. I hope that by the time that it receives Royal Assent, as it will, Canada will have made a positive response to what we have said. If that is so, the time spent on Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading will not have been wasted.

Mr. Eric Cockeram: In introducing the debate my hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that the request to repatriate the Canadian constitution came with the consent of the Canadian Parliament. There is no one in the House who has listened to the debate on Second Reading or tonight who does not support the principle of repatriation. The problem that arises in the minds of many hon. Members, including myself, which is why I voted against the Bill on Second Reading, is the manner in which the House is being requested to repatriate the Bill and the timing thereof.
The Indian community has a case outstanding, which will shortly go to appeal in the House of Lords. It ill-behoves the House to attempt to prejudge that issue. We have been reminded that the province of Quebec, one of the two founding nations of Canada, namely, the British and French, with 25 per cent. of the population of Canada has a case outstanding in the Canadian Supreme Court. That case is due to start in about a week's time. We are told by the lawyers that it is due to be concluded in May. There is often slippage when cases, particularly complicated cases of a constitutional nature, go through the courts. There may be a slippage in that case until June or July. A constitution that has existed for 115 years can

well wait another five months to establish beyond doubt that the request made to the House is fully constitutional in the country from which that request comes.
It appears that the Government are determined and that the House is likely to give the Bill a Third Reading. The Bill will then go to another place, where there will probably be similar haste. I do not prejudge the issue, but it is probable that the Bill will receive a Third Reading in the other place in due course, after which it is necessary that the Bill receives the Royal Assent. Once again a real problem is being presented by the Government. Royal Assent will probably be given to the Bill by someone who is Queen of Canada as well as of Great Britain and who is sworn to uphold the rule of law in Canada's courts. I f, subsequently, the Canadian Supreme Court gives a ruling that in any way casts in doubt the request now before the House, we will cause supreme embarrassment in that quarter, too.
My criticism of the Government is not that they stress the importance of the rule of law, which they do rightly, nor that at the last election we put the importance of respect for the rule of law high in our manifesto, but that they seek to legislate before the law has been ruled upon. The Government are behaving in a disrespectful manner to our courts and the courts in Canada, which is a sister country of the Commonwealth. That is unworthy of the Government.

Mr. John Roper: We have heard the arguments about the courts frequently, but as a House we have no option but to consider and support the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, it would have been wrong to refuse the request of a sovereign, independent Commonwealth Government to take charge of its own constitution, as it has every right to do under the Statute of Westminster. We are merely carrying out the provisions that were laid down and prepared for in that statute 50 years ago.
On Second Reading I made it clear that my right hon. and hon. Friends supported the measure. We support it again today. We have learnt a great deal about Canada in our correspondence on the Bill, which has been valuable to many of us. We believe that there is close friendship between this country and Canada. The links between us and Canada will develop and grow.
For many of us in the House the study of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms incorporated in the Bill has been of considerable interest. There seems to be considerable argument, which many of my hon. Friends would support, for introducing some such measure into our own legislation. I shall not pursue that matter, because if I did so you might rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
On Second Reading I said that if we rejected the Bill there would be misunderstandings. Certain remarks made on Second Reading and in Committee have been substantially misunderstood in Canada. We have not helped the interests of the Indian peoples of Canada by comparing their situation with that of people in South Africa. I was glad that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said that earlier remarks had been exaggerated. He paid tribute to Canada's role in furthering human rights.


Had he not done so, I should have felt obliged to refer to the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, which caused considerable offence when they were relayed to Canada.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I was responding to an intervention. I subsequentally withdrew the remark. It was ill-judged and totally extemporary. Many of us make such mistakes. It is a question of human rights. I should not have drawn a parallel with South Africa and El Salvador.

Mr. Roper: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman further clarifies the point.
No one would deny that there are problems in Canada, but the people of Canada must work them out among themselves. In giving the Bill a Third Reading we are sending them our good wishes and good will for the solution of the problems.
As has been said, it is an historic occasion in the final development of the Commonwealth. It is particularly appropriate that we come to the final stage of the Bill on Commonwealth day, as the Minister said.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: On Second Reading, I said that, although I broadly welcomed the Bill, I would concentrate on that part of it for which I had an especial concern. In fact, concern for the future of the Indian people in Canada has dominated all three days of debate.
There can now be no doubt that the issue has been and will continue to be central to the reservations that hon. Members have over the patriation of the Canadian constitution and, therefore, over the Bill. Canada is a mighty country—the second largest in the world. It is endowed with immense natural resources and with a huge variety of terrain and climate. We all admire the people from Europe who had the courage, steadfastness and faith to settle that vast area.
Since the first French and British settlers came, Ukranians, Rumanians, Czechs, Poles, Greeks, Italians, Germans, the Dutch and Scandinavians have followed in their thousands. Many have come as refugees from poverty and persecution. All came to find a wider opportunity in a comparatively empty land.
The fact of the Canadian federation is an astonishing success. In that enormous country there is an established system of democratic government which contains and satisfies the needs and aspirations of a great variety of people—all Canadians but all, too, with something of the culture of the countries from which they or their parents came.
In Britain and through much of Europe we know the nation State. We should never underestimate the great challenge of forging a new nation from a polyglot community. Canada has succeeded in that challenge. We in Westminster salute her.
There are now 23 million Canadians. All but 5 per cent. of them are immigrants or descendants of immigrants. But I fear that towards the native 5 per cent. —the descendants of those whose land it was before the white man came—Canada has to a degree so far failed in her own high ideals.
I shall summarise two points. First, it is still my view that the Canada Bill does not explain what Canada intends to do about the Crown's obligations to the Indians. I have studied sections 25 and 35 and I note the reference to

aboriginal and treaty rights. I have also studied the amending formula by which those rights can be eliminated by the federal and provincial Governments without the consent of the Indians. Even without such considerations, however, section 35 is not satisfactory. It neither explains what rights are to be recognised, nor says how they are to be protected and implemented.
We cannot assume that that lack of explicitness is an oversight. Nor, I believe, can the House necessarily assume that the intention of the federal and provincial Governments is benign. If we are to assume anything, we must assume that those sections will be interpreted in Canada in the light of Canada's past and present Indian policy.
Time is short, and I shall be brief, but I must be blunt. Since 1840, despite minor fluctuations, Canada has had only one policy for Indians. That policy is best summarised by the word "assimilation". Indians are to be assimilated. They are to become part of the mainstream. They may hang on to their feathered headdresses, they may make artifacts for the tourist trade and the remnants of their culture will be housed in museums, but they will not be allowed to lead their own way of life, to control their own communities, to shape their own economies or to develop the resources of their own lands.
I do not wish to deal with the detail of Canadian policy, and it would not be in order for me to do so. I wish only to point to the broad sweep of assimilationist policies for Indians that Canada has practised since 1840. It remains my belief that the policy of assimilation is a direct breach of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and of the treaties. The essence of the Crown's constitutional arrangements in relation to the Indians is that, in exchange for their peaceful surrender of vast areas of their homelands, the Crown will respect and protect the Indian way of life for ever.
The policy of assimilation is wrong. It is also a failure. I am convinced, however, that the policy is perhaps the result more of ignorance than of malice. I do not think that Canadians even now are fully aware of the guarantees that the Crown gave to the Indians. I believe also that we British bear some responsibility for that. I do not believe that Canadians are aware of the constructive objectives that Indians have for themselves and for Canada.
It is never too late to redress past wrongs. Because these debates are so crucial to the Indians, I have tried to do what I can to clarify and to speak out not only for what the Crown's obligations to Indians are now, but how the Indians themselves understand their rights and obligations to the Crown. I hope that Canada is patient with us and is still listening. I hope that the Canadian press will not spend too long on the procedures of the debate but will continue to give high exposure to its content.
I turn now to my second main point. Let us go straight to the heart of the matter and examine the Indians' relationship with the Crown. In Canada's present constitution, sovereignty is divided up, not by levels of government, as we sometimes think, but by areas of jurisdiction. The Federal Government have exclusive areas of jurisdiction in defence, foreign policy, transportation and communications. Likewise, the provinces have areas of exclusive jurisdiction in the ownership of resources and in the provision of education and social services. It may come as a surprise to hon. Members that in a sense this is the key concept of the whole debate about the Indian position.
The Indians, too, believe that they have areas of exclusive jurisdiction on their reserves, subject only to overriding federal jurisdiction but not to provincial jurisdiction. Moreover, that federal jurisdiction is subject to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which has never been repealed in Canada or in Britain, and to the treaties. It is in this sense that the Indians speak of Indian sovereignty, as carefully qualified participants in the overall federal system of shared sovereignty which is the essence of existing Canadian constitutional arrangements—and it was this Parliament which created those constitutional arrangements.
It is in this sense that we refer td the Crown in right of the federal Government and the Crown in right of the provincial Governments, and it is in this sense that the Indians speak of the Crown in right of Indian government. The Queen is represented by the governor-general of Canada at the national level and by the lieutenant-governors of the provinces at the provincial level, but the Indians have no distinctive Crown representative or officer to mediate in their relationship with the Crown.
The Indians have proposed an office for the protection of Indian rights. The commissioner responsible for that office would be either the governor-general in an extended role, or a new Crown representative designed to fulfil the unique requirements of the Royal Proclamation and the treaties.
Most of the Canadian population lives in a dozen cities strung across a 4,000-mile border with the United States. The rest of that huge country is virtually unpopulated except for small townships and hamlets. In vast areas of the mid-North and the far North, Indians are still the predominant population and their numbers are growing. Unless one is an assimilationist, it makes good sense that those Indian communities be allowed to control themselves. It makes no sense to attempt to control every aspect of their life through a huge bureaucracy several hundred or even a thousand miles distant. Indian government is not only an implied right in the Royal Proclamation and in the treaties. It is plain common sense.
Finally, to those Canadians—and there are many of them—who believe that Indians must take responsibility for their own affairs, it should now be clear that that is precisely what is happening. I have in mind the work of Chief Robert Manuel of British Columbia and the other chiefs of the Union of British Columbia who went across Europe last year alerting the European community to their problems and their fears. There is also the work of the Four Nations confederacy of Manitoba and of the Treaty 9 organisation of Ontario.
I am mindful, too, of the great leadership shown by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians whose chief, Solomon Sanderson, is on record as saying that the London lobby has advanced the concept of Indian government by 25 years, and I shall close by quoting a piece written by him to his own people in November 1980. It conveys the determination, strength and power of the Indian movement. He said:
We have resisted military domination, missionary assimilation and legislative termination. We will insist on enactment of all the provisions of the treaties through a joint process between the governments of Indian Nations, the Crown and the governments of Canada. But we will not be limited by treaties. Our sovereign and aboriginal rights give us greater scope than the treaties. Through Indian government, through our economic development, through our social processes, through our education and through the flowering of our Indian cultures we

will overcome the frustrations of the last little while in our long history and determine for ourselves what it is to be an Indian within an Indian Nation.
Because up to this moment the federal Government have still not responded to the Indian people's plea to meet and to talk before the Act goes back to Canada, I shall with great reluctance and some sadness abstain in the vote tonight. An Indian-inspired solution to Canada's Indian problem remains for me the challenge in Canada's future.

Mr. George Cunningham: Listening to this debate, and to preceding debates on the Bill, has made me think that in some respects they are comparable to those that took place during the history of the British Empire, as we picked up one part of the world after another. Debates on those distant parts took place in this Chamber. They were marked by some considerable knowledge, by some considerable ignorance and, above all, by boundless presumption. That is the characteristic that has marked the English—if I may now adapt the national description—down the centuries and has certinly marked them in debates on the Bill.
Those of us who have had however small a part in British-Canadian constitutional relationships at any time were always aware that the historic and constitutional anomaly could give rise to difficulties. For Britain it did not cause any problem for as long as it lay dormant. For Canada it was always a regrettable latent humiliation that parts of the constitution could be amended only by the parliament of another country. Anyone who has been in that position must be glad that we are now terminating the anomaly.
The grossness of the anomaly ought to be appreciated. Here is a country recognised not just since 1931, but long before, as independent and sovereign on the international stage but which has to turn to the parliament of another country to alter its own constitution. When that happens difficulties, embarassments and bad relations are almost bound to be caused when the issue has to be discussed.
There has been no similar case within the Commonwealth, but let us note in passing that we have another wee dormant anomaly that could still cause difficulties, although to a lesser extent. That anomaly is the legal responsibility for choosing governors of Australian States, which still lies with British Ministers and not with any Ministers in Australia at any level. Before that anomaly festers, for goodness sake let us get it sorted out with Australia and remove it.
Who is to blame for the present situation? In the words of the monologue "Albert and the Lion", "no one really was to blame". One could say that it was wrong of us in 1931 to accept that we should pass the Statute of Westminster, and allow the anomaly to be perpetuated, because it was clearly going to be much more difficult to resolve it in the post-1931 relationship than in the pre-1931 relationship. The Canadians asked us to do it. Were we to say that we would not do it or should we have said that we would hold up the Statute of Westminster for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland until the Canadians had worked out a formula to put to us? Certainly none of the present generation on either side of the Atlantic can be blamed for the situation, but we cannot blame our predecessors either.
When the latest and concluding chapter of the saga was raised, I felt glad that we were to remove the anomaly, but resentful, as were most hon. Members, about the language used by Mr. Trudeau when he talked of the House having no option but to vote for whatever Canada put to us, without looking at the merits of the matter.
If we are asked to pass something and we have the legal responsibility to pass or not to pass it, we should not simply cover our eyes and say "Show me where to sign". Mr. Trudeau's remarks were impudent, not because Canada was a subordinate legislature, but because it was an equal legislature. It is not for one parliamentarian or the Prime Minister of one country to talk in that fashion about the parliamentarians of another country. Of course, those remarks were decidely counter-productive.
Mr. Trudeau would have been better advised to encourage us to look at the merits of the case. At least, I thought that until I sat in on the debates. I found the merits good, both with regard to the constitutional formula for future amendment of the constitution and, though with more reluctance, with regard to the charter of human rights.
It has been suggested that we should not have been prepared to pass the legislation unless the federal authorities and all 10 provincial authorities of Canada approved the request. I do not agree. It would have been all right for us to accede to the request even if, in an extreme case—to make the point—the 10 provinces had all been against it.
If we imagine a situation in which each of the 10 provinces possessed a legal veto on constitutional change and something more normal was proposed—say a weighted majority system such as applies in many federal countries—one would expect each of the provinces to say "We would rather hang on to our legal individual veto". But that system does not apply in any other federation that I know of. We could have expected the provinces to oppose the change, but it would have right for us, if we had the legal power to do so, to override them and to introduce at the request of the federal authorities a system more in keeping with what was adopted in other countries.
I did not feel competent to judge the details of the charter of human rights. I do not feel competent to judge whether it should be possible for a person living in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, to write to his tax officer in French. However, looking at the broad lines of the charter, I see nothing wrong with it. It is pretty well in line with the charters of fundamental rights that we, on our own responsibility, have placed in the constitutions that we have given to quite a few countries in the Commonwealth and it is more or less in line with international practice. Without considering the details, it seems that the general lines of the charter are all right.
I have been greatly surprised by the fact that the debates have concentrated enormously on the rights of Indians and aboriginal people in Canada. I do not say that we should not have taken any interest in that matter. For example, if the Canadians had put to us a proposal that the constitution should deny Indian people the right to vote, it would of course have been right for us to say that we were not prepared to take the responsibility for passing that.
We should, however, exercise enormous restraint. We should recognise the fact that Canada is, but for this

anomaly, an independent country of 50 to 70 years' standing. We should pull back from the feeling that we know better than people in Canada or that when people in Canada disagree, as they always will, we are in a position to arbitrate between them. We are not. If the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) has an infinitely greater knowledge than I have, which would not be difficult, of the Indian people of Canada, he still does not possess adequate knowledge to take decisions with regard to those people. It is for the Indian people of Canada, in relation to their own Government, to fight that kind of battle.
On the issue of constitutional legality, I should like to correct an amazing statement made last week by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). I am sorry he is not now present. The right hon. Gentleman stated in regard to the divisibility of the Crown:
Every Indian in Canada believes that the Canadian federal Government and its agencies are agents of the British Crown in Parliament
—by which he presumably means the British Parliament—
endowed by Britain with certain administrative and legislative powers, and entrusted by the British Crown with powers to implement on its behalf the promises that Britain made to the Indians".— [Official Report, 3 March 1982; Vol. 19, c. 323.]
That is rubbish. The idea that not simply some Indians, not even most Indians, but that every single Indian in Canada is unaware of Canadian independence is grotesque. It is not true. We should approach our discussion of these matters in the knowledge that, within Canada, people are well aware that their dealings on these matters, as on practically everything else, have to be settled within Canada and not with our interference. We are entitled to intervene. If the case is very strong, we are right to intervene. But we are not fitted to overturn greatly the balance of judgment that comes to us from the other side of the Atlantic.
I found amusing Mr. Trudeau's phrase about the empire striking back. I did not, however, think that I would see it in action. But, my God, we have seen it in action in the course of this debate. I think that Mr. Trudeau was impudent in the extreme but we have paid him out in spades. I think now that we can say it is quits. Actually, it is a bit more than quits because our impudence has greatly exceeded his. Let us now, after this passes, go on, or perhaps one should say go back, to a situation where the two countries deal with each other on a friendly and normal basis without the complication that has spoilt our relations over the last two years.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I have not spoken before on this matter and I shall not weary the House with a lengthy speech. If there is a vote on Third Reading I shall abstain, as I did on Second Reading. I do not do so carelessly or without a great deal of heart-searching, for I appreciate that such action could easily be misconstrued as unfriendliness or even colonialism to a truly great independent nation that forms so vital a part of the Commonwealth and that stood side by side with Britain in defence of freedom, democracy and civilisation itself.
I have visited Canada. I admire greatly the Canadian way of life and the goodness and integrity of those Canadians whom I have had the privilege of meeting. It would have been far easier if I had allowed myself to be swept along on the tide of general good will towards Canada and its people—a good will that I warmly share. I have, however, chosen the course of abstention


deliberately. I voted for certain amendments in Committee deliberately for one and, to me, all-important reason. I believe, not as the Government and the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) asserts, that we have only the obligation to hand back this matter lock, stock and barrel to the Canadians, and that the role that Britain was left to play and should play in the matter is as a trustee of this constitution for the benefit of all Canadians. I believe that it is wrong for us to relieve ourselves of that trust until it has been properly discharged. And I believe that even though the Government and Parliament of Canada demand a speedy patriation.
We have not just a moral but a legal obligation to discharge that trust with all correctness. What is that trust? In legal principle it is that we must ensure that the request that is made to us is completely constitutional, no more and no less. In a democracy such as ours the mere request made by an independent parliament would be enough, but in Canada—which is a federal democracy with a written constitution—the Supreme Court is the supreme judge of constitutionality. That Supreme Court has not yet given its supreme judgment. It will do so when Quebec has been heard. Until it is heard, the constitutionality of the matter must remain in doubt—it cannot possibly be otherwise.
Although it is not a legal point, I wish, perhaps out of an abundance of caution, to avoid seeing the British Government placed in the position of having to make excuses for having done something in haste that is not constitutional. Still more so am I anxious to see that Her Majesty the Queen should not be embarrassed in any way, especially when all this could be avoided with only the hardship of a limited delay.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that it would not be right to treat the Canadian courts with less respect than do the Canadians. I agree with that, but that is precisely what we shall be doing if we pre-empt the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court. That is my legal objection.
My moral objection concerns the racial minorities. I know that the laws that govern the minorities in Canada must be Canadian laws, but if I am right in believing that we hold the residuary duty to legislate in accordance with our trust, then we cannot or should not discharge that obligation without satisfying ourselves that the minority communities are being adequately protected in accordance with promises that Britain herself has made. I have my doubts about that matter.
I shall not take up the time of the House with my reasons, for they have been powerfully analysed and stated by my hon. Friends the Members for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), in particular. I say only this. Surely we have a moral obligation to make certain that the treaties that a British Queen and a British Government negotiated with the aboriginal people of Canada are discharged with no vestige of dishonour.
That honour will be discharged, in my view, if the House of Lords and the Canadian appellate courts say that that honour has been discharged or if some assurances of respect for those obligations had come from the Canadian Government. But that has not satisfactorily happened. Until those courts say, in effect, that that honour has been discharged, or until the Canadian Government give those

assurances, my doubt must remain. I am far from certain that our moral obligation has been properly and fully discharged any more than has our legal obligation.
I wish the Canadian people well with all my heart. I wish to surrender our residual powers so that that self-governing democracy shall have complete control of itself and its laws and that that should be done with all our friendship and support. But I do not think that it is a matter of presumption to delay the Bill. It is far more important than that. It is a matter of honour. In all honesty, I cannot see that our obligations have truly been honoured, and I cannot therefore in honour support the Bill.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), who has made a gently stubborn, well informed series of contributions to these debates, had a good phrase. He said:
I hope that Canada is patient with us and is still listening.
That is a sentiment that I echo. It is a matter of some sadness that, although on this occasion we should be exhibiting unanimous and undiluted pleasure at what is before us—the patriation of the constitution of a great country whose representative I watched walk side by side with the British representative at the head of the procession of flags of the Commonwealth countries in Westminster Abbey today—we have seen the expression of great " disquiet by many hon. Members about how this constitution might be applied and especially how it might affect the future of the aboriginal peoples. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said, this has in a remarkable way dominated our debates.
At one stage last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), whose concern for human rights is well established and admired by a great many people, put on record:
As I recall, only the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), who is not present this afternoon, was prepared to express any confidence during Second Reading that the Canadian Government will live up to their obligations under the international covenant on civil and political rights.
Surely that is not true. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government believe that the Canadian Government will live up to their obligations. I am sure that the official Opposition believe the same. This evening, the hen. Member for Essex, South-East said that the Canadian Government were
in the van of decent conduct.
The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), who unfortunately is not here now said, that I
seemed to be completely satisfied that everything was all right in Canada; there was no reason for us to have any concern. Having delivered his speech, the hon. Member for Inverness left, and we have seen no more of him." — [Official Report, 3 March 1982; Vol. 19, c. 309–321.]
The latter part of that was quite true. I did not participate in the Committee stage because Liberals took the view which I understood to be shared by the Government. The Minister was present, and he took part but he did not say anything of substance. The only difference between him and me was that I was not there and he was. What is more, the official Opposition said that it was quite wrong for us to seek to amend a Bill brought before us by a sovereign country after a long process of internal consultation, negotiation and debate and a clear


majority verdict of the Canadian Parliament, which, I remind the House, was 246 to 24, and a clear majority, bar one, of the Canadian provinces.
The former remark of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North that I was satisfied that everything was all right is most certainly not the case. I can think of no country, my own included, where, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman,
everything was all right … there was no reason for … any concern.
I was very much disturbed by what the representatives of the Indians told me, and I am sure that that was reflected on both sides of the House. I was equally immensely impressed by the dignity, restraint and the trust with which they presented
their case.
I chose my words with very great care on Second Reading, and I repeat them because I cannot find a better way of putting it. This, to me, sums up my position:
I have been concerned to learn of the fears of the Indian population. I am sure that if we rehearse them the Canadian Government will pay close attention to what we say. However, I am troubled that we in the House would seem to be holding out to the Indians expectations that we cannot fulfil and about which we cannot do anything. Responsibility for those peoples resides with the Government of Canada. It is with that Government that they must live and with that Government that they must deal."— [Official Report, 17 February 1982; Vol. 18, c. 337.]
It is, after all, a good and civilised Government by any standards, including our own.
The right hon. Member for Norwich, North was wrong to suggest that anything that I said implied a lack of recognition or sympathy with the problems of the aboriginal population. That is not true. However, he was right when he said that I disagreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) —fulfilling on this occasion, on behalf of the Liberal Party, the role of a Back Bencher. My right hon. Friend said, echoing slightly what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said this evening:
There is no doubt that we have a right to deal with this Bill. Suppose the Bill contained a provision that the Indians should be exterminated? That would be absurd, and it could not be said that we were bound to enact such a suggestion".— [Official Report, 3 March 1982; Vol. 19, c. 320.]
Indeed not. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said "Suppose that there was a proposal that the Indians should have no vote. We could not enact that". Of course not.
If the Canadian Government were that sort of Government, they would not have come to us at all. There would be no question of legislation having been put before us. However, they came, and in doing so they risked criticism, because they are democrats. Because they are democrats, they will take the criticisms that have been made and question their policies, as all good democratic countries continually do. We pay attention to what people from abroad say about what we do in Northern Ireland. We sometimes resent what they say, and say that they are ill-informed and that they do not properly understand the situation. I imagine that the Canadians are saying precisely the same thing about many of the things that we are saying here. Equally, to some extent, people in the Canadian Parliament will be entitled to say to their critics here in the British Parliament, who demand the right to amend this Bill because it does not meet their understanding of the reponsibilities that they have, the trust about which the

hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) spoke, "What have you been doing about that trust during the last 20, 30, 40, 50, 150 years? How many speeches were made in the House on the matter during that time, if the matter is all that important?".
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), said that for some of us this responsibility has been an entirely new discovery. The same thing was said by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), who said that many hon. Members had come to the matter rather late. It is, of course, a matter of trust in the Canadian Government. I trust my Liberal Canadian colleagues to be fair and just to the Provinces and minorities. Beyond that, I trust the Canadian people.
The Minister said in opening that we are removing an anachronism. He spoke of the multitude of ties, both formal and family, which bind Britain and Canada together. As a Scot from the Gaelic-speaking area of Scotland, I know of a special tie, in that Nova Scotia is the only other Gaelic-speaking part of the world. A couple of years ago, in the Mod in Perth—the Gaelic equivalent of the Eisteddfod—I met a Canadian from Nova Scotia, who had never been in Britain but who spoke fluent Gaelic which he learnt from his family who settled in Canada in the early part of the nineteenth century. He was quite understandable and there was no difficulty in communication. Indeed, there is no great difficulty in communication between the Canadians and ourselves. We well understand the problems and fears and the pride of minorities. Those problems will be respected.
I welcome the Bill without hesitation and am proud to have played some small part in its passage. If there is a Division—and I hope that there will not be—I shall vote in favour of the Bill.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: For much the same reasons as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), I support the Bill's Third Reading. As I explained my reasons for supporting the Bill on Second Reading, I shall detain the House only briefly.
I wish to make only two points. I read carefully all the arguments put forward in opposition to, or in criticism of, the Bill. To a modest degree, I share some of those reservations and criticisms. They centre on two main issues—the rights of the Indian and Inuit peoples and the position of Quebec. Although I have listened carefully, I have come to the view that such matters are—as lawyers would say—de minimis compared with the Bill as a whole. That may sound rather sweeping, because I understand that de minimis means too small to matter and we are considering the rights of the Indian people and Quebec's position. Nevertheless, they are too small to matter when considered against the big political and constitutional picture created by the legislation.
That picture is that once nine out of the 10 provinces had reached agreement with the federal Government on the contents of the package to be sent to Westminster as a request, it was game, set and match to Mr. Trudeau. There was then no longer any constitutional reason for trying to delay, hinder or object to the legislation. In a vivid phrase during parliamentary debate in Ottawa, Mr. Trudeau urged his colleagues to beware of the tyranny of unanimity. That is a valid remark. More than most countries, Canada finds unanimity almost impossible. We have heard much about


the rights of the Indians, but there are many other minorities whose rights could be raised at subsequent proceedings if we were to adopt the imperialistic referee role that some hon. Members would have us do and if we were to try to legislate for the rights of the Doukhobors , the Amishees or those of the Chinese in Vancouver. We have responsibility, but no power. The House cannot try to exercise control over situations that may arise thousands of miles away.
Anglo-Canadian relations have been strengthened rather than weakened by our debates and by the arguments and discussions that preceded them. That is true on a human, parliamentary and governmental level. Those of us who have been engaged in the discussions and debates have been involved in more personal communications with Canadians than at any time in our lives. I speak as someone who is half-Canadian, with a Canadian family. The warm and friendly exchanges with ordinary Canadians—through correspondence and meetings in the House—have given us all a far greater understanding of Canada than would otherwise have been possible. That is of lasting value.
On a parliamentary level there have been numerous exchanges between parliamentarians from Westminster, Ottawa and the provincial Parliaments. That, too, has been of real value. If I had to take one example of how great the value has been, I would cite the moment when in Westminster we realised that there was every probability that the Governments in Westminster and in Ottawa would together try to hurry through the legislation. That was the best part of six months ago. At that stage Back Benchers on each side of the House made it absolutely clear, through the usual channels, that that would be quite unacceptable unless the issue had first been to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the light of history, that was an enormous bonus. We have had enough argument when the issue has been agreed; if we had had fundamental disagreements and there had been a split between the provinces and Ottawa before we had tackled it, the Bill would have been doomed. Above all, it was of value to Canada that the highest court in the land ruled on all the crucial issues before the matter was debated at Westminster.
On a governmental level, we have not heard much of the co-operation between the Canadian and the British Governments, because by their nature those communications were comparatively secret. Nevertheless, I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friends who have high office in the Foreign Office, the Canadian High Commissioner, Mrs. Jean Wadds, and her staff here in London, and the Government in Ottawa, who have co-operated and collaborated in finally getting this package through in an acceptable and realistic form.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) accused the Government in Westminster of colluding with the Government in Ottawa, as though that was some frightful crime and sin of which we should be rather ashamed. The reality is just the opposite. It is the business of friendly Governments to collude and to co-operate. If Parliament in its wisdom thought that this issue was unacceptable on moral or legal grounds—or, indeed, every other ground that has been canvassed high and low in the Committee stages of the debate—we were quite at liberty to say so. One of the great compliments that one can pay this Parliament is that, once the issue had been agreed on to a large extent in Canada, it was clear—indeed it is clear by the thinness of the attendance here tonight—that it was

not really our business to be arguing and fighting over every small comma, every issue, and every procedural wrangle that could have arisen.
As someone whose roots lie deep in Canada, I welcome this day, as the Bill begins its journey back to Canada and leaves the House. It is apposite that it should be Commonwealth Day on which this is occurring. I rejoice with my Canadian friends and relatives and wish the Bill well.

Mr. George Robertson: May I add my congratulations to and celebration of the words of the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) that on Commonwealth Day we should be approaching the end of the Commons stages of the Canada Bill. It is right that we should clearly recognise the historic nature of this day. As the hon. Gentleman has just said, the thinness of the attendance in the House this evening marks the fact that the majority of hon. Members have accepted on trust the fact that the Bill came from the sovereign Parliament of Canada and have abandoned these proceedings for activities more closely related to the interests of their constituents.
It is an historic moment for the Canadian people and for the British Parliament. In considering the Canadian nation and the process upon which it has embarked, it is right that this Parliament should recognise its success—its economic record, the respected role of its leaders in the world theatre and in the Atlantic Alliance, its championing of the recently acknowledged importance of the North-South dialogue, and its consolidation and strengthening of its own federal structure, which makes this new constitution so important.
Many people went from this country to Canada, some of them having unwillingly to turn their backs on their own native land in order to seek opportunities abroad. We in this Parliament can look on their success with some degree of envy, perhaps, and hope that their native land—so free as it is now with its advice to Canadians—might learn some of the ways of success from the expatriates who people today's Canada.
I am indeed conscious of the importance of the debate and of the brevity with which hon. Members have dealt with the issues that concern them. Given my youth and the fact that I have never been to Canada I am conscious of the comments that have been made and of the important role that has been given to me in replying from the Opposition Front Bench.
The crucial issue that has concerned many hon. Members in the House has been whether we have a moral, a political or a legal right to amend the Bill in the process of its consideration. We have had many lengthy legal and political arguments on that point during the 19 hours of the consideration of the Bill. There are hon. Members who still hold strong views on each side of the argument, but the Canadian people have made the issue much more clear-cut and much less divisive than the issue appeared to be this time last year, when so many of the provinces were still dissenting, and with the consensus in the Parliament seeming to be particularly fragile.
The consensus has now been obtained. All but one of the provinces have assented and the majority in the Canadian House of Commons is clear-cut and unequivocal. Therefore, we are not now in the position Of having endlessly to debate our rights, our privileges, our


obligations and our responsibilities in relation to a Bill that might not have found its own consensus on the other side of the Atlantic.
I felt some concern in trying to decide whether it was right and proper to consider these matters in some detail. Others of my hon. Friends have had no such dilemma. I came to the view that it would be wrong in principle and misconceived in practice for the British House of Commons to amend the constitution as it has been delivered to us from Canada. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) have said, it would be wrong in principle for us to amend the Bill when the Canadians have deliberated so long and reached that consensus. It would have precipitated a major constitutional crisis between two friendly countries had we ultimately decided to make an amendment after that reasonable consensus had been obtained.
The arguments for not amending the Bill on practical grounds are also very strong. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has reminded us that it is not just the unwillingness to interfere in the affairs of another sovereign country that should inhibit us from amending the Bill. After the Bill has become an Act and left this Parliament, we shall have no responsibility whatever for any amendment that might, even by accident, have been made during the passage of the measure through this House. Therefore, however strongly we felt on any issue, and however strong the arguments voiced in this Chamber or the other place, our ability to take responsibility after the measure has left this House is negligible, and it surely can be no role of a Parliament in a democracy to seek to take decisions over which it has no responsibility after the event.

Mr. Ennals: Had there been within the Bill and the charter of rights something that the hon. Gentleman felt was fundamentally wrong, would he still have taken the same line as he does now?

Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend has posed the question which, in a sense, I tried to deal with by prefacing my remarks with the degree of consensus obtaining in Canada. As other hon. Members have pointed out, had the charter of rights tried to do something that was totally inimical to the principles by which we stand and given that we have the responsibility for commenting on the Bill, we certainly would not have done so.
I was going to go on to some of the issues that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends raised, but, in view of the processes by which the Canadian Parliament came to its decision, it is clear that we should not be placed in the position of imposing amendments for which we would have no responsibility afterwards, no right to monitor, no right to review and no right to change if we were ultimately proved wrong.
Although the official Opposition have taken the clear view, which has been opposed by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir. B. Braine), that we would not vote against the Bill in its present form, we have tried to express views and allow free debate on the many issues that have arisen. For the same reason, the Canadian Government and Parliament asked the British Parliament not simply to
patriate its constitution and to return to it the powers that

are still subject to our jurisdiction in the British North America Act 1867, but to pass the Act of patriation and enact a charter of rights. Thus inevitably the British Houses of Parliament were likely to pass judgment on what they thought the content of the charter of rights was or should have been.
Our freedom to comment, to criticise, to suggest and to record our views is right and proper, and the Canadians could not have expected otherwise when they decided to present the Bill in the form that they did. It may be that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is right that whatever impudence may have been interpreted from the words of the Canadian Prime Minister in the early stages, by any stretch of the imagination the record is now straight. As Canadians plough through column after column of Hansard, covering what many of us here have sat through, they will see many comments which will keep them going for many nights if they take any interest in it.
Two issues have dominated the debate and our consideration of the Bill. The first and the most dominant has been the Indian and other aboriginal peoples of Canada. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) summed up the details of the arguments that we have put forward following the representations that have been so sincerely and passionately put by the representatives of the Indian nations, who have been here for so long talking to and informing British Members of Parliament. I stand firmly with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on this side of the House in saying that perhaps our consideration of the Bill would have been assisted if some of the questions that we put to a helpless and hapless ministerial team, who felt themselves obliged not to give answers to the detailed points put forward for the proper reason that it was not their duty or responsibility to do so, had been answered.
It might have helped the House if the Government of Canada had made a statement to inform and to put right hon. Members who were not striking the right note. As I said in Committee, treaties can never be for ever. For a Scotsman to wax eloquent at the Dispatch Box about the Royal Proclamation of 1763 is to risk in Scotland nationalist cries about the Treaty of Union signed in 1707. That is much closer to hon. Members. Separatists and nationalists are still carping about the need to implement that treaty in detail.
The view of the official Opposition and the view of all except the strictly separatist parties in Scotland is that we live in today's circumstances and not with what was put together in 1707 to bring about this House of Commons. The same argument, however regretfully, must be put to those whose treaties go even further into history. Many hon. Members have spoken with great passion about the rights of the Indians. That issue must be dealt with and disposed of by Canadians in the Canadian Parliament which is responsible to its electors.
Northern Ireland is on the agenda again and we have to consider the absorption of the ethnic minorities. That qualifies us to talk with some authority on the subject, but our lack of success makes a degree of humility appropriate. There are few answers to the problems but hon. Members' views are on the record. We hope that they will be read with interest.
Quebec is also an important issue. The provincial Administration is openly and avowedly separatist. Its objections arise from that basic philosophy. I recall the charm, persistence and eloquence of the agent-general for


Quebec who has tried to persuade hon. Members of the strength of the Quebec case. Despite that, I am still unconvinced.
Hon. Members have said this evening that there is a case for delaying consideration of the Bill until 15 March when the court in Quebec consider the veto question. That is a powerful and persuasive argument. We have already said that indecent haste was displayed in relation to the House of Lords. I recognise the strength of that argument, but it has a weakness. The issue before the Canadian court is unlikely to be resolved by court action. That is because the Quebec Administration, which is avowedly separatist, seeks the sovereignty of what our nationalists would call home rule or independence. It is unlikely to be satisfied by any court judgment on 15 March or any other subsequent occasion. That court case will be followed by another and then another. Nothing short of secession of Quebec from the Canadian federation is likely to satisfy a party that is avowedly separatist.
If it is legitimate for us on some future occasion to pick an arbitrary date after which we think all reasonable court cases will have been dealt with, is not that taking a decision that more properly should be taken by the Canadians'? If we postpone the Third Reading of the Bill to a time that satisfies us, we are not acting in accordance with the principles of the decision by a sovereign Government. The decision as to what time is right in the litigation calendar should be made, and has been made, by the Canadian people. In the House of Commons we cannot play at Canadian politics. We sometimes find it hard enough to deal with the politics of our own country.
The social, cultural, economic and personal links that bind the people of Great Britain and Canada are longstanding and real. The Scots, who were all too often driven unwillingly from their native shores by the savage pressures of economics, have made a special contribution to building up the success of the Canadian State. Many of them watch the Canadians' welfare closely and with great affection.
As a Scot, therefore, I have more than average pleasure in winding up this historic debate for the Opposition and in seeing this stage of the patriation of the Canadian constitution completed. I have no hesitation in recommending Opposition Members to support the Third Reading of the Bill. In doing so I wish the people, the Parliament and the provinces of Canada all our deepest and most sincere best wishes for their future that is now to be constitutionally, but, I hope, never personally and humanly, severed from the United Kingdom.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I wonder in exactly what role I am cast. I am described as someone who is rushing forward headlong and blinkered. We are manipulators left, right and centre, we collude with the Canadian Government and at the same time we are helpless and hapless. I feel rather confused.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me if I do not review their contributions to what has been an interesting debate, except that I cannot resist congratulating the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I am delighted that the bait that he cast on Second Reading was taken so quickly. I hope that he enjoyed his trip to Canada. I thank him for his constant support for the Bill.
At this hour I can be brief. We come now to the conclusion of the contribution of the House to fulfilling the request made to us by the Canadian Parliament in December last year. The Canadians requested us to pass a Bill that would create a charter of rights devised by Canadians for Canada. The Bill also incorporates as its other main elements a procedure for future amendments of the Canadian constitution and the repeal of the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom at Westminster to legislate for Canada.
Because of this final provision, the last few weeks have marked the last occasion on which the House has been called upon to debate the constitutional affairs of Canada. It has been rightly said that the residual powers of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to legislate for Canada in the matter of the Canadian constitution is an anomaly in the relationship between this country and a leading member of the world community, which in practice has exercised its independent statehood for many decades. I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to oppose the passing of the power to amend the Canadian constitution to Canadians in Canada.
The Government have listened carefully to the doubts and reservations expressed about the Bill. Hon. Members were entitled to take the time of the House thoroughly to thrash out those matters. The doubts fall into two main categories—about the timing of the Bill and about points of substance in the Bill.
On the timing of the Bill, I can do no better than did the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). A solemn address was received from the Canadian Parliament endorsing a proposal prepared by the federal Government and nine of the 10 provincial Governments. The British Government moved immediately to bring the Bill before Parliament. We delayed consideration of the Bill in January pending the outcome of proceedings before the Court of Appeal. Particularly in the light of the judgment given at the end of January, we did not believe that it would be right further to delay the Bill's progress. In view of other pending legal actions, which are still pending—the case awaiting petition in the House of Lords is only one of many—we decided that further delay could have prolonged consideration of the Bill for an indefinite period.
The Supreme Court decision on Quebec last year took months to deliver after the hearing. We were told that it would be in July, and then in August; finally, it was September before the judgment came. We considered the effect of that. We also considered the new package that Prime Minister Trudeau was able to achieve.

Mr. Lawrence: If it was considered constitutionally right to delay consideration of that Bill until the Supreme Court had decided on a constitutional matter, why is it not right to delay this Bill until the Supreme Court has decided on the constitutionality of this matter?

The Attorney-General: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend has read the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Quebec case. I have formed an opinion from reading it of the likelihood of the present Quebec proceedings succeeding.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is not our view.

The Attorney-General: My responsibility is to advise the Government on legal matters. Others may take other views.

Mr. Ennals: Is it reasonable for the Attorney-General to assume what will be the judicial judgment? It seems to be most improper.

The Attorney-General: It is a matter not of assuming anything, but of giving the matter a balanced consideration after reading the judgment, just as we did in the Indian case.

Mr. Winterton: It is political expediency?.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, he must stand.

Mr. Winterton: Is it not political expediency. If not, can my right hon. and learned Friend explain it?

The Attorney-General: I have explained the matter, and I intend to go no further.

Mr. Winterton: That is not an answer.

The Attorney-General: Different aspects of the legislation worried a small number of hon. Members who believed that there were defects in the legislation that would affect Canada. It was even said by one hon. Member that the Canadians would live to regret a certain provision. However, the Government have consistently taken the view that we must leave it to the Canadians to judge what is good for Canada. In the last quarter of the twentieth century it is not for this House, which is the best part of 3,000 miles away from Canada, to pronounce on matters that are unquestionably the responsibility of the Government and Parliament of Canada. Most hon. Members share that view.
It is, as has been said many times, due only to an anomaly that we are here debating the affairs of Canada at all. Those anomalies are about to be removed. That is as it should be. At the same time, there has shone through the debate, even in the speeches of hon. Members who found matters to criticise, a wealth of interest in and concern and affection for Canada that we all share. That also is as it should be. As we pass this legislation which envisages the end of a formal link, I am confident that we can expect other links, less formal but more practical, between our two countries to expand and flourish.
I shall end on a personal note. In 1942, as an ordinary seaman in Combined Operations, I had some involvement in the Dieppe raid and spent some time with the Canadian troops who played so brave a part in that unhappy operation. Any participation by me at Dieppe was prevented by a too accurately timed bomb on the ship in which I was serving, but during that time I was certainly able to form admiration and respect for the soldiers who carried out that operation. It seems to me that those soldiers displayed then the same courage, initiative and independence that we so admire among Canadians in Canada today.
I therefore invite hon. Members to support the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 33.

Division No. 85]
[9.56 pm


AYES


Alton,David
Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)


Anderson,Donald
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Aspinwall, Jack
HomeRobertson, John


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)


Banks, Robert
Hurd,Rt Hon Douglas


Barnett,Guy (Greenwich)
Johnston, Russell(Inverness)


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Beith,A.J.
Jopling,RtHon Michael


Bennett, SirFrederic(T'bay)
Kimball,SirMarcus


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Kitson,SirTimothy


Benyon.W. (Buckingham)
Knight, MrsJill


Berry, Hon Anthony
Lang, Ian


Best, Keith
Lee, John


Blackburn,John
Leighton, Ronald


Boothroyd,MissBetty
LeMarchant,Spencer


Boscawen,HonRobert
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Brinton,Tim
Luce,Richard


Brocklebank-Fowler,C.
Lyell, Nicholas


Brooke,Hon Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)


Brotherton,Michael
McCrindle,Robert


Brown, Hugh D.(Proven)
Macfarlane,Neil


Brown,Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
MacGregor,John


Bruce-Gardyne,John
McKay, Allen(Penistone)


Bryan, SirPaul
MacKenzie, RtHon Gregor


Budgen,Nick
McNamara, Kevin


Cadbury,Jocelyn
McQuarrie,Albert


Callaghan, Rt HonJ.
Major,John


Carlisle,John(LutonWest)
Marks,Kenneth


Carlisle,Kenneth(Lincoln)
Marshall,DrEdmund(Goole)


Clarke,Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Martin, M(G'gowS'burn)


Clegg, SirWalter
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Mather,Carol


Cormack,Patrick
Mawby, Ray


Costain,SirAlbert
Mawhinney,DrBrian


Cunliffe,Lawrence
Maxton,John


Cunningham,G.(IslingtonS)
Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Mayhew, Patrick


Davis,Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Mellor,David


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Meyer, SirAnthony


Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)
Millan,Rt Hon Bruce


Dixon,Donald
Miller,Hal(B'grove)


Dormand,Jack
Mills,Iain(Meriden)


Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.
Moate, Roger


Douglas-Mann,Bruce
Morgan,Geraint


Dover,Denshore
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Dunn,Robert(Dartford)
Morton,George


Dunnett,Jack
Murphy,Christopher


Emery, Sir Peter
Myles, David


English,Michael
Neale,Gerrard


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Needham, Richard


Evans,John (Newton)
Nelson,Anthony


Faith,MrsSheila
Neubert,Michael


Faulds,Andrew
Newton,Tony


Finsberg,Geoffrey
Osborn,John


Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Page, Richard (SWHerts)


Garel-Jones,Tristan
Palmer,Arthur


Goodhew,SirVictor
Penhaligon,David


Goodlad,Alastair
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Gow, Ian
Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)


Grant, George(Morpeth)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'thN)
Raison,Rt Hon Timothy


Hamilton,James(Bothwell)
Renton,Tim


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
RhysWilliams,SirBrandon


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Ridley,HonNicholas


Hawkins,Paul
Robertson,George


Hawksley,Warren
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hayhoe, Barney
Roper,John


Haynes, Frank
Rossi, Hugh


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Sandelson, Neville


Heddle,John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Henderson, Barry
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)






Shepherd,Colin (Hereford)
Trippier, David


Sims, Roger
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Skeet, T. H. H.
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Waddington, David


Speed, Keith
Waller, Gary


Speller, Tony
Ward,John


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Warren,Kenneth


Spriggs, Leslie
Watson,John


Stanbrook,Ivor
Wheeler,John


Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)
Wickenden,Keith


StradlingThomas.J.



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)
Mr. John Cope and


Tinn, James
Mr. Donald Thompson.


Townend,John(Bridlington)





NOES


Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&amp;P)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Roberts,Albert(Normanton)


Cockeram,Eric
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Cryer, Bob
Skinner,Dennis


Dalyell, Tam
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Stoddart,David


Dunlop,John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Eastham,Ken
Wainwright,E.(DearneV)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Wigley, Dafydd


George,Bruce
Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)


Hardy, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Holland,S. (L 'b'th, Vauxh 'll)
Woodall,Alec


Hoyle, Douglas
Young, David (BoltonE)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)



Lamond,James
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Mr. Stan Thorne and


Maynard, MissJoan
Mr. David Marshall.


Parry, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73B (5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)

MEAT HYGIENE

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9247/81 containing a Commission report in respect of personnel responsible for carrying out health inspections, supervision and control tasks at establishments handling meat products, cut meat and stored meat, together with proposals for amending Council Directives 71/118 and 77/99 concerning the qualifications of personnel responsible for certain functions required by these Directives; and supports the Government's aim of securing recognition that environmental health officers are qualified to act as supervising and certifying officers for the processing of meat products for intra-Community trade and for similar functions in poultry cutting premises and stores which are separate from slaughterhouses.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Ordered,
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (ECSC Decision of 7th December 1981 on Supplementary Revenue) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Petition

ELDERLY AND DISALED PERSONS

Mr. David Penhaligon: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition initiated by constituents of mine who are particularly concerned about the welfare of the elderly and the disabled. The petition contains 540 signatures, mainly those of constituents. Similar petitions containing many thousands of signatures have been presented to the Prime Minister. The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble Petition of residents of the United Kingdom sheweth—
That the increased rate of VAT has considerably increased the financial burden on charities;
That the Government is encouraging many charities, particularly those working with the elderly and disabled, to shoulder a greater share of the work in their sectors, and that this inevitably further increases the expenditure incurred by such charities.
Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will introduce and approve such measures as may be necessary to exempt those charities which provide facilities for the elderly and disabled from VAT payments.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.

To lie upon the Table and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Crime

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—
[Mr. Thompson.]

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Raising the subject tonight of the role of the citizen in the prevention of crime, I start by drawing attention to worrying reports in the newspapers over the weekend of the sharp rise again in violent street crime in London. The latest figures show that there are now 50 violent street crimes, many of them so-called muggings, committed in London streets each day. That is a very worrying figure.
I have no doubt that inner London is probably one of the worst areas in the country for violent street crime but I also know that other large cities are showing a similar increase, including, I regret to say, my city of Bristol. It is not my purpose tonight to discuss the reasons for the increase in violent crime, most of which is the responsibility of young men. I am sure that the boredom and frustration of unemployment is a contributory recent factor but there is also plenty of evidence to show that there is a relationship between affluence and crime. The United States of America is an outstanding example of that.
As we know, the streets of large cities were dangerous places in the nineteenth century, even after the formation of organised police forces. But the early years of the present century showed a sharp drop in street crime even during the mass unemployment of the 1930s. Now we are returning to the street conditions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when no woman went out alone unescorted and arms for self-defence were carried as a matter of course.
That brings me to the questions about which I wish to speak tonight, and that are being raised increasingly by the law-abiding in this country. How far does the old common law tradition still apply that the power to arrest, detain or even kill in self-defence or in the defence of others, and to keep the peace, are the rights and responsibilities of all citizens? Has that common law principle been eroded by the special statutory responsibilities imposed on the police force over the years since its creation? In short, has professionalism, as in so many other spheres, overwhelmed amateurism?
Out of that question rises another. Do the police welcome the "have a go" citizen? I had an incident in my constituency of a brave, elderly man who did just that. He "had a go" against hooligans who were causing damage to public property. As a result, he was knocked about and afterwards gained the impression from the police that they felt that he should have stood back and informed them instead, even if it had meant losing time until they arrived. If that is the case, the police attitude of "leave it to us" can provide an excuse for those apparently cowardly individuals who see a woman or an elderly person assaulted violently and do nothing to help.
An extreme example of what I mean occurred in 1978 and was widely reported at the time. This was when a woman ran screaming through scores of people thronging a shopping centre in Shepherd's Bush in West London. She was being chased by a man who had held her prisoner for eight hours and raped her four times. She bolted into a crowded betting shop. Her attacker rushed in after her and dragged her, screaming and struggling, back into the

street. Eventually, he became afraid and fled. Not one person had helped her. Of course, that may be due to many causes. Some may say it is due to modern urban living, where no one feels any special personal responsibility for any occurrence. In a somewhat similar case, bystanders thought that the couple concerned were married and felt, therefore, that they should not intrude.
I hesitate to believe that the explanation for not helping an attacked person is simply the fear of being hurt oneself. The British have always had a reputation for physical courage, and it is hard to believe that there has been any real change in this respect.
But I believe that the ambivalent and non-committal attitude of authority to general public involvement in dealing with crime causes confusion, and I trust that the Minister of State will be able to make an authoritative statement about his Department's thinking on the subject, because it should be doing a great deal of thinking on the subject.
However much police numbers are increased—and they have increased greatly in recent years—such is the nature of violent personal assault against individuals and the speed of the attack itself that even the policeman on the beat cannot be everywhere at the same time.
I am not advocating private police forces or vigilante groups. There are obvious objections to these, and often the motives of those organising such groups are suspect, because sometimes the motives are political or racial. I am asking that authorities should make it clear that the help and active involvement of the ordinary decent citizen is welcomed in putting down crime and that, if a citizen intervenes in support of the police or to deal with a criminal act immediately, ample compensation will be available for any injury sustained.
As I understand it, there are public funds available for this purpose, but it is not a statutory right. I understand also that if a claimant is involved in legal expenses in making his case for compensation he will have to pay them himself. That is completely wrong. There should be a statutory right to compensation and it should be free of expense once a claim is shown to be genuine.
I come, then, to the right of self-defence. I had always thought that it was part of the social contract of the classical constitutional theorists that we all had the natural right of self-defence and surrendered it, including the right to bear arms, only for the greater security provided by organised society, a system of law and, of course, a police force. If society is incapable of providing or unwilling to provide that collective protection, the right of self-defence returns to the individual. I thought that that was the classical position in common law.
In 1980, however, a woman was charged in West London with carrying an anti-mugging spray contrary, apparently, to the Firearms Act 1968. The case was dismissed, I think because of the good sense of the magistrates, after the woman had explained that she had already been attacked and needed to defend herself in future.
I can tell the Minister that many women carry these devices in their handbags when they venture abroad. It would be monstrous if any were accused of aggresive intentions when they are concerned only with their own defence and safety, in place of a defence which apparently the State can no longer give. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this matter, because the answer that was given to one of my hon. Friends in the


House on 10 February last year was not encouraging. I shall read an extract from Hansard of 10 February 1981, when my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the growing number of cases known to the public as `muggings', he will take whatever action necessary to legalise the carrying of protective aerosol sprays by women to enable them to protect themselves from such attacks.
The Minister of State, Home Office, gave the following reply:
No. We are not persuaded that the legalisation of such devices is the way to bring about a reduction in violence.—
[Official Report, 10 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 301.]
That may be so. Nevertheless, there is a great dilemma here which I suggest it is the business of the Home Secretary and the Home Office generally to consider seriously for the public are much troubled by it.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has brought this important and often overlooked question of crime prevention and the role of the citizen to the attention of the House this evening. I shall try to answer some of the significant matters that he raised.
We all agree that law and order are essential to the wellbeing of a stable society. Discussion on crime and its remedies often concentrates on what should be done to apprehend and punish offenders. We came into office determined to restore respect for the rule of law and to do all in our power to provide the framework within which the law may more effectively be enforced. Since then, following our full implementation of the Edmund-Davies Committee's recommendations on police pay, the strength of the police has increased by some 8,000. That is very encouraging. However, we cannot expect the police, who do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances, to act alone in attacking crime. Crime, in particular offences such as robbery and burglary, is on the increase, as the hon. Gentleman said, and we, as citizens of this country, must all play a part in endeavouring to reverse this trend.
An effective response to crime requires the active cooperation of the community as a whole. It is not enough for people to turn a blind eye to criminal activity with the attitude "It's nothing to do with me". It is everything to do with them. The police, who are there to protect the community, cannot operate efficiently without the cooperation of that community, and there are many different ways in which members of the public can assist the police in their task.
One obvious example of this is the "999" emergency telephone system. Often success in apprehending offenders depends on the immediacy of the police response to an incident. If any member of the public witnesses criminal activity or becomes suspicious about anything unusual, he should always contact the police, without hesitation, by dialling "999".
The hon. Member has raised the question of what an individual should do if he witnesses a criminal act. Should he "have a go" and physically attempt to prevent the crime from being carried out? It is difficult to lay down hard and fast rules, but if someone sees a crime being committed it is his duty to take action. This might take one of several forms. Certainly he should dial "999" to call the police, or ask someone else to do so. He might also try, if

appropriate, to warn off the offenders or even intervene physically. It is obviously a matter of judgment for the person concerned what is the best action to take in the circumstances. The police would not encourage a citizen to "have a go" unless he was capable of doing so without risking serious injury himself and unless immediate physical intervention was clearly required—for example, to save the victim of an assault from serious injury, or to arrest a thief who would otherwise escape. Under the Criminal Law Act 1967, any citizen is entitled to use reasonable force in the prevention of crime. What is "reasonable" is for the court to decide in all the circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman particularly asks about weapons that may be carried by members of the public for use in self-defence. As he is no doubt aware and has implied, there are two provisions of the law which may affect this issue. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 makes it an offence to have in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any offensive weapon, which is defined as any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him. The prosecution has to prove that the article in question was made or adapted for causing injury to the person, or intended for such use, and even if this is proved the person carrying the article still has the opportunity to show that he had a lawful authority or reasonable excuse for carrying it.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: My right hon. Friend should say "he or she".

Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is right. However, I think that it is generally agreed that this Act places no unreasonable restriction on law-abiding citizens. For example, self-defence with an ordinary umbrella or walking stick would not be caught by the 1953 Act.
The second legal provision which is relevant is in section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, which makes it an offence to possess, purchase or sell without written authority of the Secretary of State any prohibited weapon
designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing.
Although I should emphasise that I have no authority to give a ruling on a point of law, and the matter could be decided only by a court, we have taken the view that some of the devices designed for self-defence are prohibited weapons within the meaning of the Act.
Proposals for a change in the law to enable devices such as tear gas or pepper dye sprays to be carried for self defence have been put to the Home Office in the past, but we have felt bound to resist them, not because of any failure to understand why those who feel threatened make the suggestion, but because of the general consequences of such a change. Put simply, such devices would be equally effective in the hands of an assailant, and, no matter how strict a control was exercised over their possession, it would only be a matter of time before they were used by criminals. The result could then well be an escalation rather than a reduction of violence.
We have no plans at present to change the legislative provisions that I have outlined, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the issue remains under review.

Mr. Palmer: I accept that sprays and so on could be used by criminals, but criminals often use knives.

Mr. Raison: That is true, but I am trying to explain that there is considerable technical difficulty in allowing such devices, which could palpably fall into the wrong hands. It would be difficult to know whether they were getting into the right hands.

Mr. John Carlisle: Given the increase in muggings which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has brought to our attention, does not my right hon. Friend agree that sprays are probably the most effective weapons? As that form of crime is increasing, should not my right hon. Friend consider some change in the law?

Mr. Raison: We are not intransigent, but if we were to do that there might, in addition to muggings, be a problem of sprayings. We could not permit sprays to be used only by those who we know would behave well. They would come on to the market and it would be difficult to control their ownership. We might end up in an even worse position.
Of course it is quite permissible to use personal warning devices such as the "shrill" alarms now on sale. These may be of limited usefulness in certain situations. For example, they might provoke an attacker, particularly a determined one, into becoming more aggessive, although they might well frighten off a less determined assailant. Some attackers come unexpectedly and from behind, and it is doubtful whether the victim would necessarily have time to activate the alarm. However, we are currently evaluating the use and value of those devices.
I share fairly widespread disapproval of the formation of so-called "vigilante groups". As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear in a written answer on 29 January, we are opposed to their formation. While the Government have no powers to proscribe them, if such groups act in breach of the criminal law the police will take appropriate action.
Members of the public can assist greatly in the prevention of crime by taking steps to avoid becoming its victims. For example, property owners and occupiers can take reasonable measures to secure their premises against intruders. Such simple precautions as adequate door and window locks are especially useful, since offences of burglary are often committed by opportunist thieves who would be deterred by even a modest level of security.
The Home Office is also active in disseminating publicity on all aspects of crime prevention through television, radio and press campaigns, and through the production of films, posters, leaflets and booklets.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: This is all terribly interesting. Will my right hon. Friend not agree that a disturbing aspect of some of the economies that are being made at present—which all the dissemination, the films and the publicity will do nothing to prevent—is that my own authority in the West Midlands is being forced to make a £2 million saving on its police budget, which I was told it would not have to do? It means that many thousands of hours of overtime have been cut. To be effective, a police force should not be cut. I hope that the Minister will apply his mind to the fact that exhortation is not half as effective as the police working full belt to stop the criminals in the streets of our cities. Shall we get a pledge, that will be kept, that the police will not be cut?

Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is a little wide of the subject of the debate raised by the hon. Member for

Bristol, North-East who was talking more specifically about crime prevention measures and the role of the citizen. I said at the beginning of my reply to the hon. Gentleman's speech that we have already managed to raise police numbers to the level that I do not think has been approached for a long time, if at all. That is something that I should have thought was to our credit. We have clearly made the law and order programmes a priority in a period of admittedly curtailed public spending. I do not think my hon. Friend can suggest that the Government are anything other than determined to attack the problem of law and order and that the facts bear that out.
I return to the question of publicity that I was referring to a minute ago. We are trying to offer guidance to citizens on, for example, protecting their homes and their cars, on measures they can take to avoid property being vandalised, and to give advice to children on the dangers of going with strangers. Advice is, of course, also readily available from the local police crime prevention officer, who will have the advantage of knowing the particular crime risks in his locality.
Another way in which citizens have become involved in the prevention of crime is through local crime prevention panels, and I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the valuable voluntary work they undertake. Since their inception in 1968, over 170 local panels have been formed by police forces in England and Wales to promote and harness local effort in the prevention of crime. They typically include a wide range of local community representatives and police officers. They carry out a variety of crime prevention work. It involves such things as quizzes and poster competitions among school children; arranging crime prevention exhibitions, seminars and publicity exercises; fitting security devices to the homes of elderly people; and establishing arrangements for shops to inform each other on an organised basis of the activities of shoplifters in the area. The quarterly Home Office magazine "Crime Prevention News" features articles on the work of panels as well as crime prevention activity generally.
I cannot conclude my speech without referring to the vital need for parents to play their part in maintaining and encouraging respect for the law. Too often children are allowed to roam the streets and to become drawn into crime, or even become its victims. Parents perhaps more than any other group are in a position to help prevent crime, both in the short term by proper supervision of their children and in the longer term by teaching respect for the law and so laying the foundation for a responsible and law-abiding new generation of adults.

Mr. Palmer: I made my speech deliberately short so that the Minister could have the maximum time for his reply. I hope that he will not overlook the point about compensation for those who help the police or intervene to stop crime.

Mr. Raison: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The position is probably as he outlined it but, in fairness to him rather than trying to give a fuller reply off the cuff, I think that I should write to him about that point.
This short debate, as I said at the beginning, has raised a very important topic. The hon. Gentleman's anxiety and—if I may say so—uncertainty about exactly what the citizen can and cannot do in the circumstances that he has described are shared by many people. Although, in a


sense, one is inhibited from giving the kind of broad and sweeping answer that one might like to give, I hope that what I have said shows clearly that under the law there is real scope and real opportunity, as well as a duty, for citizens to play their part in the prevention of crime.
There are certain complexities which I have tried briefly to illustrate, but it remains the view of the

Government that we shall not deal with crime without full scale participation from all our citizens, and the more people are able to understand the position, the better it wall be.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.